[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

David Nuttall: I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 0, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Mr Speaker: We shall shortly begin with new clause 1, but not before I have heard the point of order from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is stated clearly in “Erskine May” that the vote must go with the voice. Many hon. Members shouted Aye; none voted in favour. Will you investigate the question of whether any Members who shouted Aye then voted No?

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I respect the spirit in which he has raised it. My understanding of the situation is that a Member who shouts Aye must not then vote in the contrary direction, or vice versa. I do not think, although I entirely respect the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s point, that it reflects in this case because a Member is not obliged to vote simply because he or she has shouted. What he or she must not do is shout one way and vote the other. But the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is an important one, and I thank him for raising it.

Chris Williamson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on whether there is a modern-day precedent for the use of imperial legislation, as outlined in new clause 1, which looks more like an attempt to prevent stories from appearing about more divisions in the Conservative party over Europe and about the date of referendum being before the general election.

Mr Speaker: I cannot say I am very grateful for that point of order, for the simple reason that, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that is a point that he could and should, if he is so minded, raise in the debate, rather than detaining the House with a bogus point of order now.

Martin Horwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope it is a genuine one.

Martin Horwood: Mr Speaker, your selection of amendments is obviously correct and beyond reproach, but perhaps you could shed some light on the non-selection of my amendment—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. He has been in the House long enough to know that the Chair is never required to explain or, as he puts it, shed light on the selection of amendments. The hon. Gentleman will have to rest content with the selection. If I were inclined to put it bluntly, I would say that he can like it or lump it.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Gibraltar

‘(1) An order under section 3(2) or (3) which extends to Gibraltar may—
	(a) provide for conduct to constitute a criminal offence under the law of Gibraltar;
	(b) extend and apply to Gibraltar, with or without modification, the provisions of any enactment relating to referendums or elections;
	(c) modify any such enactment so far as it has effect in relation to any part of the United Kingdom;
	(d) modify or apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provisions of any legislation in force in Gibraltar relating to elections, or referendums.
	(2) The capacity of the Gibraltar legislature to make law in relation to any matter in relation to which provision may be made under section 3 is not affected by the existence of the power conferred by that section.
	(3) Subsection (2) is not to be regarded as restricting the operation in relation to law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to provision made under an Act of Parliament).
	(4) “Enactment”, and “modification” have the same meaning as in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (see section 160(1) of that Act).’.—(Andrew Rosindell.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Rosindell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 41,in clause 2, page1,line18, leave out ‘and’.
	Amendment 43,in clause 2, page1,line18, at end insert—
	‘(aa) persons who have right of abode in the United Kingdom.’.
	Amendment 45, in clause 2,page1,line18, at end insert—
	‘(aa) persons who would be entitled to vote as electors in a European Parliament election.’.
	Amendment 46,in clause 2, page1,line18, at end insert—
	‘(aa) all persons who are legally entitled to vote as electors at a local government election.’.
	Amendment 47,in clause 2, page1,line18, at end insert—
	‘(aa) all British citizens resident in any of the member states of the European Union.’.
	Amendment 48,in clause 2, page1,line19, after ‘peers’, insert ‘or prisoners’.
	Amendment 8,in clause 2, page1,line20, at end add—
	‘(c) British citizens, regardless of where they are resident, who have registered to vote with a British Embassy or High Commission or with the local authority where they last lived in the United Kingdom not less than six months before the date of the referendum, and the statutory provisions relating to overseas voters shall be disapplied for the purposes of this section.’.
	Amendment 44,in clause 2, page1,line20, at end insert—
	‘(2) Persons aged 16 or 17 on the date of the referendum shall be entitled to vote if they would, save for their age, be otherwise entitled to vote under any of the categories set out in subsection (1) above.’.
	Amendment 49,in clause 2, page1,line20, at end insert—
	‘(c) citizens of the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta resident in the United Kingdom shall not be entitled to vote.’.
	Amendment 50,in clause 2, page1,line20, at end insert—
	‘(c) residents of all Crown Dependencies.’.
	Amendment 51, in clause 2, page1,line20, at end insert—
	‘(c) residents of all British Overseas Territories.’.
	Amendment 63,in clause 2, page1,line20, at end add—
	‘(2) Provision will be made for all electors included in the Gibraltar register as defined in Schedule 1 to the Government of Gibraltar’s European Parliamentary Elections Act 2004 to vote in Gibraltar in person or by post.’.
	Amendment 69, in clause 2, page1,line20, at end add—
	‘(c) persons who are citizens of British Overseas Territories.’.
	Amendment 80,in clause 2, page1,line20, at end insert ‘and
	‘( ) Commonwealth citizens who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar as electors at a European Parliamentary election in the combined electoral region in which Gibraltar is comprised.’.
	Amendment 81,in clause 5, page2,line21, at beginning insert—
	‘( ) This Act extends to—
	(a) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and
	(b) Gibraltar.’.
	Amendment 82,in line1 after ‘Kingdom’, insert ‘and Gibraltar’.

Andrew Rosindell: I am proud to move new clause 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) and myself.
	On 1 January 1973, the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joined the then Common Market, the European Economic Community, as it was known at that stage, but it was not just the people of the United Kingdom who joined what is now the European Union at that point. It was also the people of the then British Crown colony of Gibraltar, now known as a British overseas territory.
	As all Members of the House know, the people of the Rock of Gibraltar are deeply proud of the fact that they are one of Her Majesty’s British overseas territories. They are proud of being British and proud of being part of the British family of nations and territories, but they are also part of the European Union.

Mike Gapes: Is it the hon. Gentleman’s opinion that the people living in Gibraltar today are also pleased that they have the right to vote in European parliamentary elections and would therefore wish to take a role in the future of the European Union?

Andrew Rosindell: I was about to come to that very point. It was only a few years ago, in June 2004, that after a very long battle the people of Gibraltar were rightly granted the ability to vote in European elections. It was wholly wrong that part of the European Union was excluded from those elections. The people of Gibraltar, as members of the European Union, are now entitled to vote in those elections, so it is consistent with that argument that the people of the Rock should also be granted the right to vote in any future referendum regarding the European Union.
	Of course it is right that we should ensure that the provisions of the Bill before the House today are extended to the people of Gibraltar as loyal subjects of the Crown and as British citizens, to ensure that all 20,000 inhabitants of the Rock are given the right to vote in any forthcoming referendum. As in our own nation, there are divided views about the European Union, but of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South has pointed out many times, today’s debate is not about our future in the European Union. It is about the right of the people to decide and to choose their own destiny. If it is right for the people of the United Kingdom to have that right, it is surely correct that the people of Gibraltar should be extended that same right of self-determination within the European Union.
	The people of Gibraltar have a right to vote in this referendum. That is why my hon. Friend and I have tabled the new clause. It is only correct that all the people affected by the European Union are given the right to choose, so why should the people of Gibraltar be excluded from that decision?
	Whenever the referendum is held, the people of Gibraltar will vote enthusiastically for or against their membership of the European Union. We can see from the results of European elections in Gibraltar that the vast majority of people—

Martin Horwood: rose—

Andrew Rosindell: I will not be giving way.
	The vast majority of people in Gibraltar, unlike people in the United Kingdom, choose to use their votes. In fact, the most recent European elections saw a 57% turnout—far higher than the turnout in the south-west region of which Gibraltar is a part. It is therefore right that they be given this opportunity. We know that they want the right to make the decision, along with the people of the United Kingdom.
	The national anthem of Gibraltar says:
	“Gibraltar, Gibraltar,
	The Rock on which I stand,
	May you be forever free,
	Gibraltar, my own land.”
	If the people of Gibraltar are to be free, if they are to choose their own destiny, and if it is to be their own land, they too must be given the right to vote in this referendum and in all elections. I commend the amendment to the House.

Barry Sheerman: I served on the Committee, and during our proceedings we looked very closely at this matter. I remind the
	House that at that time the Government were unaware of, or had forgotten, the fact that the people of Gibraltar were a very special case because, as a European election constituency, they are part of the west of England seat and, as such, should have been included from the very start when this Bill was dreamt up.
	Of course, we know that this is very much not a normal private Member’s Bill. I have never, in my experience in the House of Commons, seen a private Member’s Bill where Government Members are on a three-line Whip.

Andrea Leadsom: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that demonstrates the importance that Government Members attach to giving the British people a say in an EU referendum?

Barry Sheerman: No, I am sorry, but I do not. I think the whole question of a referendum is a very important one that this House should look at, but it is a major constitutional issue that should have been introduced with a Green Paper and had a pre-legislative inquiry. It should have been taken seriously because it would totally change the nature of Europe and our role in Europe. It is unseemly and furtive, and not at the level of great parliamentary democracy, to try to use a private Member’s Bill to bring this forward.
	Until we discussed this issue in Committee, the Government seemed unaware that Gibraltar had this special status and had a vote in the European elections. Often when we take part in a Bill Committee, we realise that we do not do a lot that changes anything, but in this case we made the Government aware of the special status of Gibraltar, and that is why this is a common-sense new clause.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend rightly says that Ministers and, indeed, the Bill’s promoter, completely forgot about Gibraltarians in this context. He will remember from his time in Committee that they refused to accept our amendment that would have given Gibraltarians the right to vote in any referendum. Does he have any intelligence as to why there has been this U-turn on the part of the Bill’s promoter?

Barry Sheerman: I have been in this House long enough to be grateful for small mercies, and we did, after all, get a change. As I said, it is very unusual to do something in a Bill Committee that one can remember as being quite creative.
	It was an unusual Committee, Mr Speaker. I was in full flow at one stage, and when I turned to look at the Public Gallery, the Prime Minister was sitting in on the proceedings. This is a very special Bill—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is anything unusual either about his being in full flow or about his expectation that the Prime Minister will be listening to him.

Barry Sheerman: I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker.
	I will conclude my remarks and hope to be called later in the debate. I am in favour of the new clause, which fits in with the whole tone of the discussion that we had in Committee. The Opposition acted very positively
	in relation to this Bill in trying to refine it and to be supportive. All of us, as a team, tried to work together. We disagreed, but we disagreed in a rather pleasant way.

John Hemming: I rise to support new clause 1. The absurd proposal in this group is obviously amendment 43, which seems to suggest that everyone across Europe will vote on this issue, whatever their nationality.
	As somebody who supports a referendum on our membership of the EU but would probably vote in favour, I think it very important that UK citizens who live abroad should be entitled to vote. Obviously that is allowed, but people who live in Gibraltar also need to vote. We will eventually need to consider the wider issue of what representation the Crown dependencies have, but that is for another day.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate.
	As I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) will recall, I intervened on him to raise the issue of Gibraltar when we first gathered here on a Friday to discuss this Bill. I think I am accurate in saying that he was rather dismissive of my concerns about the people of Gibraltar and accused me of merely trying to wreck the Bill. I very much welcome the fact that he has had a conversion along the way from here to the Whips Office to get his instructions and back again, and now supports giving the people of Gibraltar the right to take part in this referendum.
	We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is one of the leading experts on the overseas territories. I was slightly disappointed, however, that he did not explain the precise reason why it is vital for Gibraltar to have its voice in the referendum. The reason is that under the treaty of Utrecht, which—he may correct me—took place in 1713, the United Kingdom has ownership of Gibraltar for as long as we and the people of Gibraltar should wish it, but should we ever renounce our ownership of the Rock, then ownership automatically passes back to Madrid. Therefore, under the treaty, the people of Gibraltar have no ability to seek their own independence. If they were not given their chance to have a say in the referendum, if the United Kingdom chose to leave the EU, they would be placed in the ridiculous situation of having to choose whether they wished to remain part of the European Union or to become Spanish.
	That is why I very much welcome the fact that eventually, after six months, the hon. Member for Stockton South and his colleagues have accepted the argument that I tried to make back in July. I look forward to his explaining why it has taken him so long to come to the conclusion that was obvious to us at such an early stage.

Gareth Thomas: As regards new clause 1, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Bill’s promoter gave us a little more information about why the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 needs to be referenced in the Bill?

Thomas Docherty: I fully agree. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on Wednesday evening we had a debate about the use of explanatory statements. As I think the
	House knows, I was a little sceptical about the mandatory nature of that proposal. However, I must confess—as I said, I am not as much of an expert as the hon. Member for Romford—that it would have been helpful in this case, because yesterday there was some genuine confusion about the amendments, with several hon. Members seeking guidance from the Clerks, the Library and elsewhere. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not explain why that particular line was included in the new clause. Does he wish to provide an explanation?

Andrew Rosindell: indicated dissent.

Thomas Docherty: No? I am sorry about that, because it has been puzzling me.
	I am keen on giving the people of Gibraltar an opportunity to take part in a referendum that will directly affect them. I regret that it has taken us so long to persuade the hon. Member for Stockton South to accept that obvious point about a flaw that has been in his Bill from the very beginning.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who is right to say that this omission—this flaw in the Bill—was pointed out at a very early stage and that the anomaly of the situation of the people of Gibraltar could have been rectified much earlier. That reflects the nature of the Bill, which in many respects—I am sure we will come on to them—is not very well thought out. It was, in effect, a public relations exercise to cover up the deep division in the Conservative party over the question of whether or not to remain in Europe.
	That has been highlighted clearly in today’s Economist, the front cover of which has a road map that goes onwards and upwards to Great Britain, with a little cul-de-sac off to the right marked “Little England”, accompanied by an image of the European Union symbol with a cross through it. I think that the risk of the little Englander is the real issue behind much of the Bill.
	The subject of new clause 1 is Gibraltar. It raises the obvious question of what would happen if Gibraltar exercised an expression of its destiny, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) eloquently put it, and voted to remain in the European Union but the UK voted to leave, perhaps with the votes of people in Scotland, which may by then have voted, in theory, to leave the United Kingdom. I am not clear where that would leave Gibraltar. It is included in the European Union only by virtue of the UK’s membership of the EU. It is represented in the European Parliament, not in its own right, but only by virtue of being a British Crown dependency.

Thomas Docherty: If I may briefly correct the hon. Gentleman on two points, he just referred to Gibraltar as a Crown dependency, but I am sure he meant to say that it is an overseas territory. I am sure he also misspoke when he said that it is represented by the United Kingdom when, of course, it has votes in the South West and Gibraltar constituency of the European Parliament.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was talking about representation and was about to point out that Gibraltar is part of the South West
	England and Gibraltar constituency, which also includes my constituency of Cheltenham and is ably represented by Sir Graham Watson. The point is that Gibraltar does not have separate representation in its own right in the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me on calling it a Crown dependency; it is, of course, an overseas territory. It has many of the same special arrangements as various other territories but, uniquely, it is part of the European Union while other overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not formally part of it.

Richard Bacon: The hon. Gentleman has said he is not clear where this would leave Gibraltar. Is it not obvious that it would leave it between a Rock and a hard place?

Martin Horwood: That will probably get the hon. Gentleman “quote of the day” in somebody’s column, but I am not sure how well it will go down in Gibraltar. I do not think we should make light of the serious issue of Gibraltar’s future in the European Union, but I value the hon. Gentleman’s humorous contribution.
	We could end up in a bizarre situation whereby Gibraltar votes to remain in the EU and the rest of the UK votes to leave it. We face the prospect of going to the effort of accepting this new clause and giving Gibraltarians their say and the ability to express their own view on their own destiny, but then expelling them from the EU against their wishes. I am not clear how that gives Gibraltarians a real say over their destiny.

Andrew Rosindell: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting this completely back to front. The people of Gibraltar would vote in a referendum, just like anybody else in the United Kingdom. If the people of Essex chose to stay in the European Union—I am not sure that is going to happen—it would make no difference: we are treated as one country in terms of the EU. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of Gibraltar will want to stay with Britain.

Martin Horwood: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Gibraltar is not equivalent to Essex in any respect. It is a separate territory and it has self-government. It is not represented in this Parliament. That is a fundamental principle of our relationship with Gibraltar. It is more analogous to Denmark’s relationship with Greenland, which voted in its own right to leave the European Union despite remaining a Danish territory. Greenlanders were give their right to have control over their own destiny, but the Bill does not explain how Gibraltarians would be given that same right should their conclusion in a referendum differ from that of the people of the United Kingdom. The Bill leaves a huge unanswered question, in that it appears, on the face of it, to offer a clear scenario whereby the voters of the United Kingdom could, in effect, expel Gibraltarians from the European Union against their wishes.

Thomas Docherty: I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman and, as a Scot, I do not quite follow his logic. Under the new clause, which seems to have cross-party
	support, the people of Gibraltar will get a say in the referendum. If Scotland chooses to stay part of the EU, it would still be bound by the collective result and the same is true of Gibraltar, unless it chooses to cease being part of the United Kingdom. I am struggling to understand why the hon. Gentleman does not see it in that way. Perhaps he could explain further.

Martin Horwood: I will explain. The situation is different from that in Scotland, because Scotland, for the time being at least, remains part of the territory of the United Kingdom, has representation in this Parliament and is represented in Europe by virtue of being part of the UK, not of being a territory of the UK. Gibraltar has self-government and that is a cardinal principle of our relationship with it. Should it at any point decide to join the kingdom of Spain, it could take that step without having to leave the United Kingdom. In effect, we are saying that we would expel Gibraltar from the EU even if it voted to remain in it.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman must have misspoken. I think he just said—perhaps I heard him wrong—that Gibraltar could join the kingdom of Spain without leaving the United Kingdom.

Kate Hoey: Yes, you did.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing me. I do not think the hon. Gentleman meant to say that. He said that Gibraltar is self-governing. It has self-government on many issues, but not all. We still provide its international relations, Home Office functions and defence functions. I think the hon. Gentleman is misspeaking.

Martin Horwood: No, on this occasion I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right. Gibraltar is a UK territory but, like other overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is not actually part of the United Kingdom. The test is whether there is direct representation in this Chamber.

Thomas Docherty: I really am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity to talk to the many Members throughout the House who have a close interest in overseas territories. Overseas territories have a great deal of self-governance, but they still rely on the UK for many of their functions, including defence and foreign affairs. It is not mutually exclusive to say that they have self-governance but that the UK provides many of their functions.
	Would the hon. Gentleman also like to take the opportunity to correct the record? It has been endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that he said that Gibraltar could choose to join the kingdom of Spain without leaving the United Kingdom.

Martin Horwood: The reason why Gibraltar could decide to join the kingdom of Spain should it ever want to—obviously, there is no prospect of that in the near future—without leaving the United Kingdom is that it is not formally part of the UK at the moment. We would respect the wishes of Gibraltarians if they ever expressed that desire. They would not have to leave, because they are not formally part of the territory of the United Kingdom itself. They are an overseas territory.

Thomas Docherty: That’s semantics.

Martin Horwood: It is a rather semantic point. I feel that we are leading the House down something of an angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead diversion, so we should probably move on to more substantial issues. The substantial point that I was trying to make before being entertainingly diverted by the hon. Gentleman was that we could end up in a situation in which the people of Gibraltar voted to remain in the European Union, but were effectively expelled from it by virtue of a United Kingdom referendum. We can leave the debate about the precise nature of Gibraltar’s detachment from the United Kingdom for another time.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: I am reluctant to take another intervention on this point, because the Members behind me will be getting frustrated, but I will give way.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My intervention is on a different point. Is not a more powerful argument in support of the new clause that there is a strong argument to make to Gibraltarians that their interests are very well served within the EU, particularly because of the importance of the EU to international global treaties on maritime issues, fisheries issues and so on? That is the strong argument that we should make if the new clause is passed.

Martin Horwood: That was a much more constructive intervention and it was typically well made by the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that there is a strong case for Gibraltar to remain within the European Union, as there is for the United Kingdom to remain within it, not only because of the issues that he mentioned, but because of the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism and a range of other issues.

Thomas Docherty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: All right—one last time.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the most important benefit of the European Union. We have a bully in Spain that has been trying to force its will upon the people of Gibraltar. One of the huge advantages of the European Union, as the people of Gibraltar know, is that it allows them, following the representations of the Minister for Europe and others, to stand up with the United Kingdom to that bully. That would not be happening if they were outside the European Union.

Martin Horwood: I will not rise to that point. It takes us away from the core subject matter of the new clause.
	I want to make it clear to Members on both sides of the House that I support the new clause because it aims to correct the anomaly. There are some reassuring parts to it. It is great to know that subsection (2)
	“is not to be regarded as restricting the operation in relation to law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to the provision made under an Act of Parliament).”
	I am sure that that will be a massive reassurance to the people of Gibraltar. It is a serious point that it will reassure them that the overall constitutional framework is being respected and not changed by the fact that we are passing legislation in this Chamber that relates to the constitutional position of Gibraltar.
	I am happy to support the new clause, although I would be interested to hear what the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) thinks the position would be for Gibraltarians in the event of their voting yes and the United Kingdom voting no. Where would that leave them constitutionally? Would they be able to renegotiate their own separate membership of the European Union? If so, would their membership carry on automatically or would they be in the position that it has been suggested Scotland might be in if it voted for independence, whereby it would leave the European Union automatically and have to reapply as an independent country?
	I will not go through the raft of amendments that we are considering in this group one by one. I am sure that that is to the relief of Members behind me. However, some of the amendments, although addressing issues that are critical to the future of the UK and its position within the European Union, run the risk of looking a wee bit frivolous. It is important for those of us who are in favour of a debate on Europe and in favour of European Union membership to retain some credibility.

Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to amendments that you have selected as valid for this debate as “frivolous”?

Mr Speaker: The substance of the amendments is a matter for debate. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who has erred rather seriously once already, is not suggesting that it was inappropriate for the Chair to select the amendments. If he thinks that their content is not up to his high standards of intellectual argument, that is a matter for debate. That they were proper amendments to be selected is not a matter for debate, because I selected them. That is the end of it.

Martin Horwood: Heaven forfend that I should question the selection of amendments once again, having been appropriately chastised at the beginning of the debate.
	I apologise to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) if I suggested that he was being frivolous. I am sure that that is not true. I am sure that he was well-meaning in tabling the amendments. What I was highlighting was that those of us who are on the pro-European side of the debate and who want to move on from arcane discussions about the minutiae of referendums to the real issue, which is whether Britain should be in or out, do ourselves no favours if we run the risk of being seen as putting forward anything that might be interpreted as frivolous. If I may put it in those guarded terms, I hope that he will respect my slight warning that we are getting close to dangerous territory.
	The one amendment that I will single out is amendment 44, which raises the issue of the voting age. We debated that matter in Committee, but it was not fully resolved. I want to put on the record the long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment to extend democratic voting rights to those of 16 or above. It is important to young people and to the future of our democracy that people who are younger than 18 are given the vote and
	are engaged in political debate, if possible while still at school. Yesterday, I was at Balcarras school, which is an outstanding comprehensive school in Cheltenham. I had a long, gruelling debate with the sixth-formers, who were really engaged in the issues. It must be a frustration to such well-informed observers of the political scene that they cannot vote. We should take every available opportunity to advance the arguments for votes at 16 and this is a good opportunity to do so.

Stephen McCabe: Is the hon. Gentleman as perplexed as I am that the Government can justify reducing the voting age for a referendum in Scotland on the basis that the young people there will be determining the long-term future of their country in deciding whether it should be in or out of the UK, but will deny them that privilege in a referendum that will determine the long-term future of the entire UK in deciding whether we should be in or out of Europe? Where is the logic and consistency in that?

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is drawing me into commenting on the Scottish referendum, which is rather dangerous territory, so I will leave it at saying that I think that votes should be extended to 16-year-olds.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Amendment 44 does not say that we should extend the vote to 16 to18-year-olds in order that they can vote for staying in the European Union. It would give them the franchise. The jury is out on whether they would vote in or out, but it is important that they have a say in the future because it is their future.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman again makes a good point. It is the future of those young people that we are debating. This issue is even more important in respect of this referendum than in respect of the wider franchise. In elections, people can change their mind after five years and kick out the Government. This decision will last a generation. The more young people we can involve in the decision, the better.
	I will draw my remarks to a close. Important issues are finally being tackled in the amendments that relate to Gibraltar, but they do leave questions unanswered.

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has understandably focused the majority of his remarks on Gibraltar on the entitlement of its people to vote. May I bring him back to new clause 1 and the intention of the Bill’s promoter to refer to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in the Bill? Does he think it would be helpful if the Minister explained to the House why it is necessary to have a piece of outdated, colonial legislation in the Bill?

Martin Horwood: I have already invited the Minister to comment on the new clause in general. In fact, I should really call him the right hon. Member for Aylesbury in this context, not the Minister, since he is not speaking on behalf of the Government. We should be mindful of the issues raised by including such colonial legislation in the Bill, although the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is probably technically incorrect in calling it outdated, as I believe it is still valid legislation. As I said earlier—

John Spellar: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the case that anyone speaking from the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the Chamber is speaking on behalf of the Government?

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That is the situation—a Minister who speaks from the Treasury Bench is speaking for the Government.

Martin Horwood: That raises an interesting issue that perhaps the Government—both sides of the coalition—should reflect on. I stand corrected for the second time in the space of an hour or so, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) for that point of order.
	I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion. The key issue is not whether the new clause is right, because I believe it has wide support throughout the House, but the anomalous position in which Gibraltar could be left if it voted to remain in the European Union, but then faced involuntary expulsion from it as a result of the vote of the rest of the United Kingdom—or of the United Kingdom, depending on whether we regard Gibraltar as technically being part of the UK. I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion about that.

Mike Gapes: First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting a large number of amendments that I tabled and for your ruling that they are entirely valid and not frivolous.
	It is important that this parliamentary democracy asserts the primacy of Parliament and its democratic processes. I have received a large number of tweets over the past few days from people who seem to believe that we should move to a plebiscitary form of decision making in this country.
	I do not want to diverge from the substance of the debate, so I will concentrate on the new clause and amendments in the group. It is important to understand why there are so many amendments on the franchise to be used in a referendum: because this short Bill is woefully inadequate. It would create a referendum held on the basis of the franchise for parliamentary elections, not European elections, even though it would have enormous implications for the 1.4 million British people living in other European Union countries. It would also affect British people who live elsewhere in the world, perhaps working for companies based in the UK, with families still living in the UK. Their prosperity depends on our membership of the EU.
	There would also be enormous implications for the 14 British overseas territories and their populations. New clause 1 rightly addresses the question of Gibraltar, and I am pleased that the Government have clarified their position on that in recent weeks. However, it is not sufficient, because people in other overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands, would be affected. Our relationship with the EU also has implications for the future of people such as the Chagossians who were expelled from Diego Garcia.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill also excludes citizens of other EU countries who may have been resident in this country for many years and have made a huge contribution to its economy?

Mike Gapes: That is absolutely correct, and I will address that point as I talk in detail about each of my amendments.

Thomas Docherty: I do not fully follow my hon. Friend’s logic; I hope that he will explain it better. We do not allow the people of the Falkland Islands to vote in a Westminster general election even though, as he rightly says, it has a big implication for their future. Will he explain in a little more detail why he thinks they should have a vote in the referendum when they do not participate in a Westminster general election?

Mike Gapes: I will talk about overseas territories’ relationship with the European Union later. Along with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I served on European Committee B when we discussed at great length a series of documents about the new relationship between the overseas territories and the EU—I have them with me and may well quote from them. Some overseas territories have become what is called in the jargon “outer areas” of the European Union. For example, the French have overseas territories that not only have the right to be represented in the French Senate, but are defined as territories of the EU. However, the British overseas territories, apart from Gibraltar, are not.

Thomas Docherty: I wrote to the overseas territories a few months ago to inquire about that point, and I know that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and others have been making a case about it in the Foreign Affairs Committee for some time. There is no great appetite for the UK overseas territories to have representation in the UK Parliament. Will my hon. Friend give us his thoughts on why that is the case?

Mike Gapes: I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. In the previous Parliament, we carried out a major inquiry on the overseas territories. They are all different. Some of them are completely depopulated, some have few people, such as the Pitcairn Islands, which I think have 56 or 57 people, and others, such as the Falkland Islands, have a long-standing British population. The people of the Falkland Islands have expressed their self-determination in a vote, but they still suffer serious threats from Argentina.
	Gibraltar still has a problem with regard to Spain, which is why new clause 1 is important. The point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham is valid, because if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, what would happen to the efforts of the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to get the European Commission President to intervene when Spain puts pressure on Gibraltar? If we were on an exit path or had already left the EU, presumably the Commission would not try to help the citizens of Gibraltar when they were suffering blockades, huge queues and all the other problems that have arisen in recent months. I have not yet mentioned the dispute that has arisen over territorial waters, concrete blocks and fishing access.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for setting out his lucid argument. Although I support new clause 1 and many of the amendments in the group, we must consider territories that rely not only on the UK’s voice but, in a diverse and asymmetric way, on the EU’s
	voice. I am thinking of my area of expertise, which is fisheries, maritime issues and so on. Those territories’ voices will not be heard, and none of the amendments will enable that to happen. We must consider how their voice can be heard in any future vote to leave the EU.

Mike Gapes: I agree, which was why I tabled a series of amendments relating to the overseas territories. We must also consider Crown dependencies such as Guernsey and Jersey.

Stephen McCabe: I am curious about what would happen if the people of Gibraltar voted to remain part of the EU, but the rest of the UK voted to opt out. If Gibraltar then found itself in conflict with Spain, where would we appeal for international support for Gibraltar? What would be the EU’s position?

Mike Gapes: My guess is that if we had left the EU, the rest of the EU would not necessarily regard us as a country to which it owed any favours, to put it mildly. Presumably we could appeal to the United Nations, but given the problems we have had in the so-called Special Committee on Decolonisation in the UN over the years, and the way in which countries such as Argentina have behaved with regard to other British overseas territories, we would be in a difficult position. The people of Gibraltar would be in a very difficult position, because if they wished to stay in the European Union, they would presumably have to find some way of getting Spain to sponsor their membership of the EU. Britain would have deserted and betrayed them.

William Bain: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that applies to other British overseas territories that have associate status with the EU and that benefit from trade, sustainable development and regional co-operation. Is he aware, for example, that the Falkland Islands receive €4 million a year directly through such arrangements? How will their people’s wishes or intentions be considered in this process if they are not included in the franchise?

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that we are considering a private Member’s Bill, but is it in order for its promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), to be taking advice from Foreign Office civil servants in the Box?

Dawn Primarolo: I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is normal for Ministers to approach the Box, and only Ministers. I did not see anyone approach the Box.

Kerry McCarthy: He’s there!

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I know where the hon. Gentleman is now thank you, Ms McCarthy, but I am saying that I did not see him approach the Box and I am sure he will not do that. It is supposed to be for Ministers. Having eyes in the back of my head is not a skill I have yet developed, but I am sure the protocol will be observed.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There cannot be anything further to that point of order. I have said that Ministers may approach the Box and nobody else should. I am sure that from now on nobody else will, apart from Ministers or their Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Where were we?

Mike Gapes: I was halfway through giving way, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) concluded his intervention?

William Bain: indicated assent.

Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend has concluded. As an aside, perhaps the solution for the Government would be to appoint the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) as a PPS for today so that such difficulties could be avoided. Perhaps that could be conveyed rapidly to the powers that be.

Stephen McCabe: I want to return one last time to the point that my hon. Friend raised about Gibraltar and the situation involving Spain. He said that if the people of Gibraltar wanted to be in the EU but the rest of Britain did not, we might have to appeal to Spain, with whom we would also have some difficulties. He suggested that we would be driven into the arms of Spain. Has he had an opportunity to talk about that to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who moved new clause 1, because he has clearly not foreseen that as one of the consequences of his proposal?

Mike Gapes: The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and I have had many discussions, and we were both at the United Nations in Washington last week with the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is my near neighbour; my constituency, like his, is in Greater London and in Essex. I am afraid that we have not discussed the details, but no doubt we will at some point over the next few days or weeks.
	Let me return to the reasons behind the many amendments that I have tabled. There is a major problem with the Bill. For example, because the choice has been made to have a franchise based on parliamentary elections, people who would be able to vote in a European election in this country will not be able to participate in the referendum. That means we are in the absurd situation whereby the citizens of some European Union countries will be able to vote in our referendum, but others will not.
	For example, a French person living in the UK who is married to a British person and has children at school, growing up, or at university in this country, will not be able to vote in the referendum. Someone from the Republic of Ireland, Malta or Cyprus will be able to vote, however, because Malta and Cyprus are in the Commonwealth, and Commonwealth citizens, along with British citizens, are able to vote in parliamentary elections. Because of our long-standing arrangements with the Irish Republic, even though it is not in the Commonwealth, citizens of the Republic of Ireland are able to vote in parliamentary elections and to stand for Parliament in this country. The measures in the Bill mean that we will exclude people who are settled with families in the UK, and who have a long-standing
	relationship with this country, from voting on whether to wrench apart the UK from their European country, yet we will be allowing other people who are not British to vote in our referendum.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman’s interesting point raises an intriguing prospect. If the referendum were to be as finely balanced as other referendums around the world have been, it might be the votes of Irish citizens, Scots who may have voted to leave the United Kingdom, Commonwealth citizens and others that actually change the result.

Mike Gapes: Absolutely. A large number of my constituents come from many parts of the world. There are British Pakistanis, British Indians, British Bangladeshis, British Somalis—all kinds of people. When they get British citizenship they can, of course, vote in our elections, but some choose to retain citizenship of another state. I have a close friend who is a local councillor in my constituency. He has a British passport, but his wife has kept an Indian passport, even though they have sons who are in their 30s and they have been living in this country for decades. Because his wife is an Indian citizen, that facilitates them when they go back to India, rather than meaning that there are problems with visas. She is able to vote in British elections and, as a Commonwealth citizen, she will be able to vote in this referendum. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a constituent is married to someone from a non-Commonwealth country, such as Somalia or the United States. They are not allowed to vote in our parliamentary elections, so they will not be able to vote in the referendum. The Government are increasing the number of anomalies. European Union rules allow citizens of any EU country to vote in European elections; indeed, they allow people to stand for the European Parliament in any EU state, whatever their nationality.

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution and referring to matters that relate specifically to my family, given that my husband has dual citizenship, as does my mother-in-law. Does he agree that the right of European citizens living in the UK to participate in the referendum is a particular issue for those of us with London constituencies that are home to huge numbers of French, German and Spanish citizens, who perhaps know best about the importance of relationships between countries in the European Union?

Mike Gapes: I might be wrong, but I understand that London is the fifth largest French city. We live in a globalised world. People come to London to give to our country and contribute to our prosperity. One reason for the dynamism and growth in the London economy is that we have attracted the brightest and best people from many European countries, and yet we will not allow them to vote on the future of the place where they have their families and connections, and to which they have made a contribution.

Kevan Jones: It is not just London. An individual in Durham who is an American citizen has lived here for 34 years. He runs a very successful business and his
	wife is English. Clearly, the Bill will affect his business, but he will not be allowed to have a say on whether the UK is part of the EU.

Mike Gapes: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are huge implications for the economy and our people should we leave the EU. However, the debate is on the Bill and not the wider issues, so I will not be drawn down that path.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend tickled me when he described London as the fifth largest French city—he must not forget the London Welsh contingent. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has turned around from the Front Bench to express sympathy. On a serious point, the forensic analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) applies and the anomalies he exposes make me wonder whether introducing a referendum in the shape of a private Member’s Bill—hon. Members have proposed right-minded amendments—has given the Electoral Commission sufficient time to look at the Bill in detail and raise similar concerns.

Mike Gapes: We will discuss the Electoral Commission’s report on the wording of the question when we speak to another group of amendments. The commission clearly takes a different view from the Government on the question, but that issue is not for this group of amendments. I do not know about the commission’s detailed views on the issues I am discussing, so I will not comment on them.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend misspoke very slightly earlier when he referred to the general election franchise, but that is not quite true, because Members of the other place would have a vote. On a more substantive point, in the referendum that we in Scotland have next year on whether we should leave the EU, European Union citizens will be granted the vote. I did not support that, but given that the Government supported EU citizens having the right to vote on that precedent on that occasion, should they not be given the right to vote on whether the whole of the UK leaves the EU?

Mike Gapes: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why I have tabled amendments that would apply either the local government franchise or the European Parliament franchise. That would meet his point about Scotland.
	I was going to come to the question of prisoners later—not prisoners, Members of the House of Lords. [Interruption.] I said prisoners because, under our present law, Members of the House of Lords, lunatics and prisoners are excluded from voting in elections to the House of Commons. The Government propose to modify that to allow peers to vote in the referendum, but not lunatics or prisoners. I have tabled an amendment on prisoners—I was unable to get an amendment on lunatics on the amendment paper. My point is that the Government are making a constitutional change in the relationship between the Houses of Parliament and in the role of Members in the other place. Are the Government proposing that Members of the other place should vote in the referendum? I referred to the Government—I must apologise; I meant the part of the Government that is
	putting forward the proposal. They need to clarify why they think that it is appropriate to change that long-standing relationship.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is expertly disentangling all the anomalies and contradictions in the Bill and the franchise, but does he agree that in respect of Gibraltar there is another one which has wider implications? A quarter of a million or so British citizens live in Spain. Some may have served this country with distinction fighting in our armed forces; others may have been in receipt of an honour from Her Majesty the Queen; and others may be working for Britain in companies in countries such as Spain. A quarter of a million people living just across the water from Gibraltar will not have a vote, but Gibraltarians will have one. What is the logic of that?

Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no logic to the proposal; it is absurd. As I said in my introductory remarks, 1.4 million British citizens live elsewhere in the EU. Only those who have registered as overseas voters may vote in the referendum. The law says that one must have been away from the UK for no more than 15 years and specifically register as an overseas voter. The figures I have seen show that there were fewer than 20,000 registered overseas voters in December 2012. The future of the 1.4 million British people living elsewhere in the EU could be seriously and adversely affected by the consequences of a referendum that leads to withdrawal, but they will not be given a say.
	Some might register, but many may have been living abroad for longer than 15 years. Since I tabled my proposal, I received, on 5 November, an e-mail from Mr Brian Cave, who lives in France. He states:
	“I, myself, have lived in France for over 15 years and thereby am disenfranchised. That of course is wrong. To further not be permitted to vote in any IN/OUT referendum is an appalling double insult for any British Citizen in Europe. We, who would be most closely affected, must have a vote in this.”
	Millions of people could be damaged. More than 1 million British citizens live elsewhere in the EU—in Spain, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has said, in Portugal, in France or elsewhere. Many are pensioners, but some live in France and work in London. Some have their families in France but contribute regularly to British companies and businesses. It is rumoured—I do not know whether this is true—that even Members of this House sometimes live in France. It is therefore important that we understand that the Government are not allowing a large number of British citizens to have a vote in the referendum. One of my amendments would make it possible for British people living in all EU countries to have a vote in it.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people will have sold their houses here and retired to Spain, for example? I am sure a lot of people from Romford have retired to Spain to a better life and winter sunshine. Disfranchising those people is anomalous in the sense that they are the ones who will be directly affected if we withdraw from the EU.

Mike Gapes: That is absolutely true. The Government—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I meant to say the Minister. Given the earlier ruling, I assume he will speak for the Government. He will need to clarify why we are not
	allowing those British citizens to vote in the referendum. After all, the devolution referendums held by the previous Government in 1999 were conducted under the local government franchise, which allowed EU citizens to vote. My proposal would widen that so that British citizens everywhere could vote.

Stephen McCabe: May I take my hon. Friend back to the point he made about the Members of the other place having the right to vote? That raises the concern that several of us have had from the outset about the wisdom of addressing such a constitutionally far-reaching measure in a private Member’s Bill. In particular, has he sought any advice on the implications of the Bill’s consideration in the other place? Will Members there have to declare an interest or say how they intend to vote in such a referendum? Will they have to disbar themselves from taking part in the debate? As far as I can see, this is new constitutional territory.

Mike Gapes: It is difficult enough for me to contemplate the implications of rulings from the Chair in this Chamber without tying myself in knots over how the Lord Speaker would deal with such issues should they be raised with her in the other place. It would be best to put that issue on the agenda for the other place if it comes to consider this Bill. It will have to deal with that issue at that point. I do not have a view on or any detailed knowledge of how it would be dealt with at that time.
	I want to be clear about the important differences between the amendments I have tabled. Amendment 43 would allow people with the right of abode in the United Kingdom to vote in this referendum, because it would affect them. Would they be expelled from the European Union? Would they no longer have the right to travel freely to the 27 other member states?
	As I have already said, amendment 45 concerns those who are entitled to vote as electors in a European Parliament election, such as all the residents of the UK who are citizens of Austria, Latvia, Estonia, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic or Slovakia—I will not list all the other 27 member states, but there are a lot of them. Some of those people gain the full benefit of our education system and contribute to our society in many ways, just as British people living in other European countries benefit from their systems. We have seen recent reports that say that more British people are on welfare benefits in other EU countries than people from other EU countries living in the UK on benefits. If we were to leave the European Union, what would happen to those British people’s right to reside in those other European countries and benefit from the facilities, social security systems and other amenities of those countries? These are issues of great importance, but British people living in other countries would not be allowed to vote in the referendum, and nor would European Union citizens living in this country. That would be wrong, because the decision would have profound, long-term implications for them. That is why we need proper parliamentary scrutiny of it, which we are beginning here today. I hope that we will be able to continue it over the coming weeks and months.
	Amendment 46 relates to the local government franchise, which is the basis for the Scottish referendum. In my opinion, there are no strong arguments against that. I have already covered amendment 47, which addresses the issue of those British citizens resident in any of the member states of the European Union.
	Amendment 48 refers to the rights of prisoners to vote. Interesting statements have been made recently by the Government’s senior law officers, but the position is confused on whether some—if not all—prisoners will be given the right to vote. The Bill is silent on that issue, but if the Government’s position changes in the next few months—despite the clear vote of this House against giving votes to prisoners—we would need to discuss it in some detail. There would be implications if the European Court maintains its judgment that some prisoners should be given the right to vote, not just for parliamentary elections but for the franchise for any referendum on leaving the European Union. That is why I have tabled the amendment.
	Amendment 8 would clarify the basis on which people would be able to vote. At present, overseas voters can register under the 15-year rule using the address of the local authority area in which they had lived previously. The amendment would allow people to register to vote at a British embassy or high commission. It is deplorable that only 20,000 people living elsewhere in the European Union have the entitlement to vote under the 15-year rule. Some 1.4 million British people live in other European Union countries and we should be trying to find ways to encourage them to register. To reduce the bureaucratic hurdles, the easiest way to do that would be to allow people in Spain, say, to contact the British embassy in Madrid; people in Portugal to go to Lisbon; people in France to go to Paris; and so on. Similarly, if we were to change the franchise to allow British citizens living anywhere in the world to take part in the referendum, we should allow them to go to the British high commissions in Delhi or other countries of the Commonwealth.
	I have touched on amendment 44 and I know that other hon. Members will wish to speak on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) mentioned the age at which people can vote in the Scottish separatist referendum, and the UK referendum should be held on the same basis. Young people have a great interest in the future of the European Union. I would hope, therefore, that they would be able to take part.

Thomas Docherty: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mike Gapes: No, I am afraid I want to conclude my remarks, because other Members wish to speak.
	The Crown dependencies, including their very important financial institutions, would also be affected, so should be allowed to vote. We have discussed British overseas territories, so I will not spend any longer on that point, and we have also talked about Gibraltar at length. The important point is this: my amendments expose the Bill’s inadequacy and need for proper consideration and scrutiny. I hope the House will provide that and support at least some of my amendments.

David Lidington: In response to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I wish to make it
	clear that, in respect of this Bill, as has been the case with at least one or two other Bills since the 2010 general election, the two governing parties have agreed to differ in their approaches to a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
	I want to address the various points made about Gibraltar.

Martin Horwood: Given the point of order raised by the sage and right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), will the Minister clarify in what capacity he is now speaking?

David Lidington: I am speaking as a Minister at the Foreign Office and, as always, as a member of the Conservative party to make clear my view of the amendments and, in particular, to respond to the points made in Committee by Members representing different political parties about extending the franchise to the people of Gibraltar.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I have taken advice on this matter, including legal advice, so that I can be confident of giving the House an accurate commentary on the effects of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton).

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: In Committee, I undertook to review this question, in response to points made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I do not think is in his place any longer, and by other Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who argued that Gibraltarians should receive the franchise, in view of the fact that Gibraltar was perhaps uniquely affected among our overseas territories by the question of Britain’s membership, or otherwise, of the EU.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: Now, the United Kingdom—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dawn Primarolo: It had better be a point of order, Mr Jones.

Kevan Jones: The convention in the House is that if Members seek to intervene, the speaker usually acknowledges them and either says no or yes. I would like some guidance, because the Minister has been completely ignoring those trying to get in.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Jones, you know full well that that is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the Minister or the Member who has the Floor to decide to whom they give way, but perhaps the Minister could indicate to the House whether he wishes to make some progress.

David Lidington: Members from all three main parties have made some serious points about Gibraltar.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I intend to continue with my remarks and respond to the points made about new clause 1 and then to respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), so I do not intend to give way to those who are seeking to intervene at the moment.
	Under the 2006 constitution of Gibraltar, the United Kingdom is responsible for Gibraltar’s external relations, including its membership of international organisations. For example, the United Kingdom would be at risk of infraction proceedings if the Government of Gibraltar failed to implement EU legislation. Gibraltar’s association with the EU is itself founded on the UK’s membership and the terms of Gibraltar’s association are set out in declaration 55 attached to the treaties of the European Union. To those hon. Members who have asked, “What would happen if in 2017 the UK voted to leave the EU?”, the answer is that in subsequent negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the future relationship of Gibraltar with the EU and the acquis would have to form one aspect of those considerations.
	Gibraltar is not a party to the whole of the EU acquis. For example, it is not part of the single European market for the free transit of goods. As I promised in Committee, I have consulted the Chief Minister of Gibraltar about his Government’s wishes, and he has advised me that they wish the franchise for this proposed referendum to be extended to the citizens of Gibraltar. Having taken advice, I am confident that the wording of my hon. Friend’s new clause would give proper effect to that wish by enfranchising Gibraltarians.
	Hon. Members have asked about subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 1. To some extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham answered this point by saying that they were designed to make it clear that the underlying constitutional order, expressed in the 2006 Gibraltar constitution, remained untouched. Under current arrangements, the franchise for European parliamentary elections in Gibraltar is determined by an Act of the Gibraltarian Parliament and Government, rather than by this House. In this case, however, the new clause proposes that the UK Parliament set the terms of a franchise that, for the purposes of this referendum, would include Gibraltar. For that reason, subsections (2) and (3) make it clear that despite this particular instance, that underlying constitutional relationship—the 2006 constitution gives far-reaching internal powers of self-government to the elected Administration in Gibraltar—remains undisturbed.

Gareth Thomas: I am following very clearly the Minister’s attempted explanation for why subsections (2) and (3) should be written into the Bill. Essentially, I am struggling to understand why he thinks there might be some problem with Gibraltan law preventing the smooth running of a referendum in Gibraltar. Is not the reference to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 a bit of overkill?

David Lidington: No, it is not overkill. This is a sensible piece of legislative drafting designed to put it beyond the risk of any misunderstanding or misinterpretation
	that the underlying constitutional relationship would remain undisturbed, despite the specific and exceptional provisions of the Bill. I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if he looks back at the Committee proceedings, he will find that his predecessor as shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), was among those arguing and tabling amendments to extend the franchise to people in Gibraltar through the vehicle of this Bill.

Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I am trying to respond to the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, I have reflected carefully on the points made in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: No. I have consulted the Chief Minister and have concluded that I should give my support and endorsement to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). It ill behoves Opposition Front Benchers to try to retreat from a new clause that seeks to give effect to something that they themselves were proposing in an amendment, which was extremely technically deficient, in a debate in Committee.

Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: No, I will not.
	The hon. Member for Ilford South has tabled many different amendments. He acknowledged that they cover a wide range of issues, which are perfectly legitimate, about the extent of the franchise in the UK. He proposed in one amendment that the UK franchise should be extended to prisoners and in another that the franchise—

Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I am replying to the hon. Member for Ilford South. He proposed amendments that seek to—

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. From the start of the debate, I have listened intently to every word. I believe that perhaps inadvertently the Government Front-Bench spokesman has misrepresented the position of our Front-Bench team. However, he is refusing to give way. Is there any recourse for our Front-Bench team to clarify a point not only of debate but of accuracy?

Dawn Primarolo: I get the gist. It is not a point of order. The Minister has the Floor and is responsible for what he says to the House. Opposition Front Benchers will get their opportunity to speak in the debate. If the Minister does not wish to give way, that is a matter for him. The normal courtesies are that Members give way at some point, but they do not have to do so repeatedly.

David Lidington: The hon. Member—

Gareth Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I am responding to the hon. Member for Ilford South. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) will have a chance to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye in a few minutes if he wishes to go over again the points that were made in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Ilford South raised the question of extending the franchise for UK expatriates beyond the 50-year maximum, which would be the effect of at least one of his amendments. He also proposed altering the general election franchise, in effect, to include European citizens as well as UK and Commonwealth citizens. All those are legitimate questions for debate but the purpose of the Bill is to apply the UK’s general election franchise terms to the proposed referendum.

Mike Gapes: Given that we are apparently going to use the UK’s general election criteria, why would there be a major anomaly? The citizens of three EU states would be able to vote in the referendum but others would not. Is that not a strange situation? Citizens of Cyprus, Malta and Ireland would be able to vote but French people living in London could not.

David Lidington: It is no more or less anomalous than the situation that applies already at our general elections, where citizens of those European Commonwealth countries who are legally resident here and registered as voters are entitled to participate, whereas nationals of other EU member states who are also lawfully resident are not so entitled to vote in a UK general election. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, it would be legitimate for him to use the vehicle of a representation of the people Bill at some stage to seek to alter the terms of the UK’s general election franchise in the way he proposes, but it is not appropriate to use the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South to make such a change when my hon. Friend’s purpose, as I understand it, is to apply the UK’s general election franchise to his proposed referendum. For that reason, I disagree with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South and support the general election franchise as set out by my hon. Friend in his Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Minister, are you giving way?

David Lidington: indicated dissent.

Dawn Primarolo: The Minister has concluded his remarks.

William Bain: I rise to support amendment 69. I would also like to comment on other amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).
	Some important points have been raised about the franchise. The first I would take up is the one about EU nationals. I have a regular correspondence with a Danish constituent in the Hogganfield part of my constituency who is married to a UK national, and has the right to vote in a Scottish Parliament election, a local government
	election in Scotland and European elections in this country. He will have the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, but under the Bill as drafted by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) he will not have the right to vote in this referendum.
	That throws up an interesting anomaly. We know that one of the implications of the Scottish referendum is that Scotland would no longer be an EU member state. Therefore, my constituent is being allowed the opportunity to vote once on whether to stay in the EU but in the event of Scotland’s voting to stay in the UK he would be denied the opportunity to vote a second time on whether to stay part of the EU as a citizen of the UK. Such anomalies show the mess that the hon. Gentleman and the Government are getting themselves into with the Bill as currently drafted.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South mentioned prisoners’ right to vote. Of course none of us in the House wants prisoners who have been convicted of serious offences or given long sentences to be given the right to vote, but an important point in relation to the franchise of prisoners in referendums came up in the discussion about the Scottish referendum. It is regrettable that we have not been joined by the Attorney-General because we would have benefited from his good counsel on that point. There is case law from the European Court of Human Rights in 2008. That says that article 3 of protocol 1, which deals with the right to vote and participate in democratic votes, says that that right is qualified, is limited to the choice of the legislature and does not apply to the election of a Head of State or indeed to referendums.

Stephen McCabe: I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is also regrettable that we have not been joined this morning by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who has responsibility for British overseas territories. He could have dealt with some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. Much as I love to hear the Minister for Europe’s comments, he seemed slightly reluctant to engage with those issues in his contribution.

William Bain: My hon. Friend is clairvoyant in picking up that ambience from the Minister for Europe. I hope that we will hear more from hon. Members who are willing to comment on these issues later in the debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I wonder what bearing the fairly recent debate and vote that the House had on prisoners’ entitlements to vote have on the amendment. In the light of the detailed way in which my hon. Friend has explained the difference between referendums and other elections, does that vote have a bearing on whether the amendment should or should not be put before the House?

William Bain: My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the issues that must accompany the referendum debate is the cost and potential cost to the taxpayer. That is why we need a definitive opinion from the UK Government and the relevant Law Officer about whether the ruling in the Polish case in 2008 would apply to this referendum. If it did, that would mean that there would be no money incurred, potentially, through legal disputes
	raised by prisoners who were not given the right to vote. That is why we need guidance from the Attorney-General and from the promoter of the Bill on the legal position.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been in the House quite a long time, but I have never known a debate on a private Member’s Bill in which, after two and a half hours, the promoter still has not said a word. Is that right that he never speaks, and that the Minister dominates the conversation?

Dawn Primarolo: That is not a point of order. It is entirely up to Members to indicate when they want to speak. In fact, I have a long list of Members who have indicated that they want to speak in this debate, and it would be good to make some progress.

William Bain: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Prime Minister will grace us with his presence later, given his keen interest in the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: A crucial point is the cost of compensation resulting from prisoners mounting challenges under the legislation. Would my hon. Friend be willing to give way if the promoter of the Bill—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. That is quite enough. If the promoter of the Bill wishes to take part in the debate, he will indicate that in the normal way. I do not require Mr Bain to comment on that. I would like him to speak to his amendment and the other amendments that we are discussing.

William Bain: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I fully support the amendment on votes at 16 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South. It is clear that 16 and 17-year-olds will have the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, and I support that right for all elections. It is intolerable that, as Demos showed in 2010, 16 and 17-year-olds contributed £500 million in taxes over the preceding 10 years but are still disfranchised.

Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

William Bain: I know that my hon. Friend will have a different view.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend will remember that, in Committee, I was embarrassed when my name was accidentally attached to an amendment in favour of votes at 16. I was put in the embarrassing position of having to speak and vote against “my” amendment. Is it not amazing that up to this point we have had no debate on this major constitutional change this morning? In my view, we are going down a dangerous path, yet we have not debated the matter until now.

William Bain: My hon. Friend, who has been a Member of the House since 1979, raises his objections with his customary vigour. I strongly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South.

Chris Williamson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Power Commission, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which spent a considerable amount of time looking into the workings of British democracy? It made an unequivocal recommendation that the franchise should be lowered to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in our elections.

William Bain: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. In this Parliament, I and many of my hon. Friends have already voted in the referendum on electoral reform to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. My support for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South is consistent with that line of thinking and with my voting record in the House.
	Amendment 69 raises an important question. The Minister has already conceded that there is a need to extend the franchise to the people of Gibraltar, but there is another group of individuals who would be significantly affected by the result of any referendum held under the Bill if it became law. They are the 260,000 people living in the British overseas territories, which include Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Those territories’ relationship with the European Union is connected to our membership of the EU.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) moved the new clause on Gibraltar. Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 26 January 2012, the hon. Gentleman made comments in the press calling for all overseas territories to be represented here at Westminster? I wonder why he now wants to exclude them from this important EU vote.

William Bain: The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) will be accountable for his own statements, but given the consistent line of reasoning that he takes in his politics, I should have thought that he would want to be consistent by showing his approval of amendment 69 later.
	Article 198 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union sets out the relationship between many of the British overseas territories and the EU. That provision allows them to form association agreements and to opt into the provisions on the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment within the EU. All of that would be affected if the result of the referendum were to take the United Kingdom out of the EU.
	The British overseas territories are not part of the EU, but EU law applies to them indirectly. It is important in regulating the trade relationships that many of the territories have with the EU, for example. Many of the islands are relatively small, and they are highly dependent on what they can export. Import tariff levels are also a significant factor in their economies. The overseas territory agreements with the EU benefit the territories through non-reciprocal preferential trade boosts and through the most generous form of tariffs. The territories’ associate status could be severely affected by the votes of people in the United Kingdom, but at present the Bill provides
	no ability for them to consent to such an arrangement. They would not be given the franchise in the referendum. That is a real anomaly, and the hon. Member for Stockton South must address it.
	Part 4 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union applies to the British overseas territories. The territories have regular tripartite meetings with the EU, as well as partnership meetings. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, under the current multi-annual financial framework, many of the territories receive money directly from the EU. They could suffer severe financial losses as a result of the referendum, yet the Bill in its current form does not allow them to consent to a change in their relationship with the European Union. The Falkland Islands receive €4 million a year as a direct result of their associate relationship with the EU. Anguilla receives €11.7 million a year and Montserrat receives €15.66 million a year. Does the hon. Member for Stockton South believe that the UK Government should indemnify those territories for the loss of that funding? Has he even raised the matter with the Minister?
	These are crucial questions, and the hon. Gentleman and the Minister must satisfy the House that the people of those territories, who will be significantly affected by the Bill, will have an opportunity to be consulted and to have their say; otherwise, a gaping anomaly will remain at the heart of this deeply unsatisfactory Bill.

Meg Hillier: Amendment 44 deals with the question of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. I am well qualified to speak about that, because I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the UK. About a third of my constituents are younger than 24 and just over a fifth are under the age of 16. As hon. Members can imagine, I have some interesting discussions with sixth formers in my constituency about this subject, which is debated hotly among local 16 and 17-year-olds.
	Over the three years since this Government came to power, one issue that has galvanised young people about politics from a parliamentary perspective—many of them were active politically in a wider sense—is the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, and I was pleased that some Hackney sixth formers came here to speak to a Select Committee about the impact of that. About 80% of that cohort were in receipt of that benefit, so the loss of it made them feel suddenly connected to Parliament, yet disconnected because they did not have a vote.
	I have met our local Youth Parliament representative a couple of times. He is very much in favour of this approach, but I have to say that support for votes at 16 is not unanimous among 16 and 17-year-olds—[Interruption.] I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has strong feelings about this in the contrary direction. I think we need to have a reasoned debate about the issue. Scotland is moving in the direction of at least experimenting with this as an option.
	When I talk to young people about the subject, some are nervous about it, some are downright opposed and some are very much in favour. Even those in favour sometimes admit difficulties because they feel that they do not know enough. They say, humblingly to me, “But, Miss, we are not informed enough to make decisions.”
	They have a laudable belief that being informed is a prerequisite to being a political representative or to voting. If every adult in this country had the same view, we would probably have an even smaller turnout at elections than we do now.
	I believe that giving people the vote at 16 is the right way forward. It would ingrain voting habits early. It is a bit like learning to clean teeth from the age of two, because if people do something day in, day out, or year in, year out—or five years in, five years out for voting—they are encouraged to keep doing it, and that would be the case for voting. We all know that one reason why the Government have chosen not to touch some issues that would affect pensioners—they are not affected by the bedroom tax or cuts to council tax benefits—is the fact that people of pensionable age are more likely to vote than young people. I do not think that anyone in this place wilfully ignores young people, but we have to recognise that, beneath our national party strategists doing endless work through Mosaic and number-crunching, there is a ruthless look at how people vote. Bringing in votes for people at 16 or 17 could make a big difference to how young people are listened to up and down the country.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend is making some powerful arguments, and she will know that I very much support the move to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in such a referendum. She made an interesting point about whether there is consensus among 16 and 17-year-olds about having the vote. Does she agree that, as these are matters of debate about where the world is going and what decisions need to be made, it is worth looking back to when women were first allowed to vote? There was no consensus among women at that time about whether they should have the vote, but the argument was won, and it was viewed as being in the national interest. No one wants to turn back the clock now.

Meg Hillier: My hon. Friend’s good contribution included an interesting point about intergenerational accountability. It is our generation that is making decisions on behalf of the nation about the future—about climate change, whether to go to war and so forth—and our decisions will substantially affect the next generation. Is it right for that generation to be denied a vote?

Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that this country has been castigated for allowing young people—as young as 15 or 16—to join the armed forces? Does she not realise that it is the protection of children and childhood that so many of us value, and that that is why we do not want to bring the age of becoming an adult down to 16?

Meg Hillier: Yet 16-year-olds pay tax and can get married, and 17-year-olds can drive. Young people can join the Labour party at 15—[Interruption.] I am advised that they can join the Conservatives at 14, so perhaps we should have a discussion with the leader of our party about that. My own children make decisions and get support when they seek advice, and they are keen to be actively engaged, even when they are under the age of 16. I believe that we take more and more decisions in which young people should be involved.

Barry Sheerman: It is shrinking childhood.

Meg Hillier: I hear what my hon. Friend suggests, but we could equally look at it as aligning adulthood with the age of marriage and, indeed, military service. People can join the military at 16, but they will not be on the front line until they are 18.
	Some young people say that they are not informed enough to vote, but if we were to agree to amendment 44, even if the referendum never went ahead, we would see a shift in thinking among people in our schools and the education system. It would provide an imperative further to improve general studies or civics lessons to make sure that people were well informed about what was going on in the world around them. We should not use young people’s fear of not being sufficiently informed as an excuse not to think about going down this road.
	A precedent has been set with the Scottish referendum. It seems to me that it is unfair to say that a Scottish teenager can vote on the important issue of the future of their country within the UK—and, indeed, within Europe—but that an English, Welsh or Northern Irish teenager cannot have a vote on a similar issue.

Chris Williamson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the voting age were reduced, it would act as a spur to the education system to ensure that there was better teaching in our schools about the importance of democracy and the civic duty to exercise the right to vote? Does she agree that our children need a political education to enable them to participate in our democracy?

Meg Hillier: Yes, I have made that very point. All of us in the Chamber have called the Secretary of State for Education to account, and no doubt even he would be keen to ensure that education about democracy was filtering down to our local schools through the national framework. We ask a lot of our schools, but it is important to develop that area of education, and it is right for us to provide an imperative to develop it. Frankly, if something is good enough for the Scots, it is good enough for Hackney’s 16 and 17-year-olds and those from London, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	Let me touch on some of the other amendments in the group. We have spent an awful lot of time discussing Gibraltar, so you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not planning to discuss the 20,000 votes of the Gibraltarians, albeit not because that is unimportant. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has tabled significant amendments about British citizens and residents and their right to vote, and I feel strongly about this issue. When I was a Minister, I spent a lot of time dealing with not only issues affecting the UK, but European issues. During my three years as a Minister, I had quite a lot of contact with British citizens in Spain who were interested in and concerned about policies. I was the Minister responsible for identity cards, and those British citizens in Spain were among the greatest cheerleaders for those cards and wanted to be early adopters of the scheme. They have a strong interest in what is going on in their mother country and are keen to have a vote.
	If we want to be fair in this referendum, we must unpick the Government's muddle. Why have they chosen the parliamentary boundaries rather than the local government boundaries, which will be used in the referendum in Scotland? There is a confusing message about who is a voter in this country.
	My constituency is one of the most multicultural in the country, as well as one of the youngest, so Hackney is certainly up there at the top of what I like to think of as the chart of achievement. I have a large number of European and African constituents, as well as people with leave to remain and naturalised British citizens. Many of those people can vote in different elections, but there is often confusion about in which elections they can vote. Overall, the message from today’s debate is that we must be clearer about who has the right to vote.
	Ultimately, in a European election, it is important that those from the wider European arena have the chance to vote. For instance, a French person living in Britain can vote for an MEP either where they live or where they are from—they have that choice. In this case, they would not have that choice. They would not be able to vote in this referendum, despite their links to Europe—this is obviously a European issue as well as a British issue—and to the UK.
	I fully support amendment 45, which would enfranchise all those entitled to vote in European elections, including EU citizens. I feel very sore that I cannot vote in the Scottish referendum, as I am a British citizen with strong views about Scotland’s remaining part of the UK so that we stand united as a group of nations in Europe and the world. I do not get a say on that, and I think that that a similar anomaly will occur with this referendum.
	On amendment 47, I feel that it is only fair that British citizens living in EU member states should get a say. As I said, I have had contact with those citizens abroad, and they feel that they are British even though they have chosen to live in another part of the EU. They have not gone to Timbuktu; they live in the political and economic union of which we are part. They are EU citizens, but feel that they are British EU citizens wherever they live. We are all EU citizens and we must see the issue in its EU context.
	There are good reasons why many of those people would be important voters, and why 16 and 17-year-olds should be voting to support our membership of the EU. Although there is a need for some reform, as I saw at first hand during three years of negotiating on behalf of the British Government in the EU, there are huge benefits to our being part of Europe, especially with regard to justice and home affairs measures. We therefore need to ensure that all people who should have a vote get a vote.
	I will not go into those benefits in enormous detail, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I fear your opprobrium if I go too far off the subject, but let us consider some of them. The much-discussed European arrest warrant, for all its faults, still provides major protection across Europe. I commend the Select Committee on Home Affairs for its report that considered all such issues, particularly the European arrest warrant. Without the warrant, we would need 27 separate treaties with EU
	member states to deal with the problem. It is important that we get the franchise right so that people can vote on such an important issue.
	There is also a benefit from the European Union criminal records information system. People repeatedly worry when employing people from an EU member state that does not have our ability to check criminal records, which we do through our vetting and barring scheme, as they are not sure who they are getting. That information system is one way that situation is being improved through European co-operation. If we cannot opt back into that system, it will be a real concern. I do not want to confuse the debate by going into the opt-ins and opt-outs on justice and home affairs, but those are big issues that affect and benefit Britain. Similarly, the Schengen information system—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Lady is drifting considerably away from the subject. Occasionally saying, “That is why it is important to broaden the franchise,” is not keeping her comments in order. I would be grateful if she would refer specifically to the amendments, rather than the wider debate.

Meg Hillier: As I hinted, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suspected that I would be tempted to drift away. Thank you for reining me in, as my natural enthusiasm for this subject overtook me.
	It is important that young people should have the chance to vote on these vital issues. British citizens living abroad should also have that chance to vote, because they will be affected by Britain’s opt-out, wherever they are living in the EU. EU citizens living in Britain also should have the chance to vote. I hope that I have made my points clear. Notwithstanding my concerns that a vote to remove Britain from the EU would be a great mistake, if we are to go down the route of having a referendum, we must ensure that it is fair and that the franchise is as wide as is reasonable to ensure that nobody feels excluded or cut out from this important decision.

Gareth Thomas: It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). We have had a really interesting debate, with a helpful opening contribution from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is not in his place at the moment, and similarly helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). Indeed, the Minister’s contribution was enlightening on some things, although not on others. Of course, there was the short but rather special contribution from the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), too.
	I shall speak to amendment 63, in my name, and to amendments 80 to 82, in the names of the hon. Members for Stockton South (James Wharton) and for Romford. These amendments relate to the electoral arrangements for the people of Gibraltar in the proposed referendum. I welcome the fact that Government Members have belatedly taken steps to address this rather glaring hole in their proposals. An apology might have been in order on behalf of the Conservative party, as it was a rather
	astonishing omission for Government Members to forget the people of Gibraltar in the referendum equation. Indeed, as the Bill’s promoter and Conservative Members consulted so few people before the Bill popped out of Lynton Crosby’s office, I suppose that I should not be at all surprised that the people of Gibraltar were not consulted before the Bill saw the light of day.
	Perhaps this is not the only such occasion that Government Members have allowed the people of Gibraltar to slip their minds, but at least, thanks to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), for Ilford South and for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for Cheltenham, this issue was addressed in Committee. Sadly, despite being awakened in Committee to the concern about the omission of the Gibraltarians from the Bill’s franchise, the Minister for Europe and, indeed, the Bill’s promoter have been silent on this problem in the intervening weeks. So it is only now, thankfully, at this the eleventh hour, that it seems that Government Members have seen the light and are prepared to address this anomaly.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend think it strange that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) moved—belatedly, as my hon. Friend says—the new clause to enfranchise the residents of Gibraltar, but that even though he has called for overseas territory residents to have direct representation in the House, he should not feel it fit to add them to the new clause?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If he will forgive me, I want to come a little later in my remarks to the entitlement to vote—or not—of citizens of the rest of the overseas territories.

Mike Gapes: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, as late as 23 October, the Minister with responsibility for Africa and the overseas territories gave the impression to European Committee B that he thought that people in Gibraltar would have a vote. He subsequently had to write to me on 30 October to correct that impression and to point out that the Minister was still considering the situation. Even though the issue has been there for some time, my hon. Friend is quite right to say that the Government—I suppose it is the Government who are responsible—have belatedly come to this view.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a helpful contribution by acknowledging the further mistake of Foreign Office Ministers in relation to Gibraltarians.
	I have read the reports of the debates on the Bill in Committee, and I say gently to the Minister for Europe that what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East most certainly did not do at any point during those proceedings was to suggest that provisions of an 1865 Act—legislation that was used for bullying the colonials—should be added to the Bill.
	New clause 1, on which so little light was shed by either the mover of the amendment or the Minister, took me back to my masters studies at the London School of Economics, where I was fortunate enough to study imperial and commonwealth studies. I cannot remember a seminar touching specifically on the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, which is referred to in subsection (3)
	of the new clause, so I did a little reading up about that Act over the past 24 hours. The Minister may want to reflect further on whether reference to the Act is strictly necessary.
	I ask the House to consider what possible problem there might be with Gibraltar law that would stop the smooth running of a referendum in the way that the hon. Member for Stockton South and others on the Government Benches want. What is there in Gibraltarian law that has sparked the concern that the potential legislative requirements of the Bill might be usurped by anything that the Gibraltarians already have on their statute book? I gently suggest to the Minister and to the promoter of the Bill that including reference to the Act is overkill and a further snub to the people of Gibraltar, after the hon. Gentleman forgot to give them the right to vote in the referendum in the first place.

Mike Gapes: Given the lack of clarity from the Minister when he referred to the matter earlier, would it not be appropriate for the House to divide on new clause 1 so that we can be clear that we are voting for its provisions, in order to avoid any ambiguity for the future?

Gareth Thomas: It is for hon. Members in all parts of the House to make their own judgment on that. Given that the Minister has already spoken and has shown no sign of wanting to intervene on me to clarify the position in relation to the 1865 Act, I look forward to the hon. Member for Romford or the promoter of the Bill, when winding up the debate, giving us a little more clarity about what causes such concern that the Act needs to be added.
	In my time as a Member of Parliament, I cannot remember another piece of legislation that needed provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 added to it. Perhaps the Minister or the Bill’s promoter could illuminate the House with details of when the Act was last used and when its provisions were last added to a Bill. In that way, some of my concerns and some of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South about the necessity or otherwise of the Act’s provisions might be addressed. The last thing we want is to over-regulate the Bill, as I fear the Minister and the hon. Member for Romford might be seeking to do.
	For those in the House not familiar with the situation with regard to Gibraltar, it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made clear, a British overseas territory which has been ruled by Britain since 1713 under the terms of the treaty of Utrecht. Gibraltarians are British citizens. They elect their own representatives to the territory’s House of Assembly and our British monarch appoints a governor. Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy, and it is home to an important British military garrison and naval base. The particular difficulty thrown up by the Bill is that should a referendum take place under the original terms of the Bill, a vote in Britain to leave the European Union could occur without the people of Gibraltar having any say at all in this huge constitutional change. The people of Gibraltar would be entirely disfranchised—ignored, in effect.
	Thanks to the CBI’s work earlier this week, we know that the Prime Minister is willing to risk the possibility of a £3,000 drop in the living standards of the British people were Britain to leave the European Union. I fear
	that there would be an even bigger hit to the living standards of the citizens of Gibraltar if the Prime Minister’s reckless gamble, all because his party is so divided, were not to pay off. Taking away from Gibraltarians the benefits of European Union membership without giving them any say in the matter would be a cruel act against them by this Parliament.
	There is certainly precedent for the inclusion of Gibraltarians in British votes concerning Europe. As I think the hon. Member for Romford and certainly the hon. Member for Cheltenham made clear, the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 provides for Gibraltar to be enfranchised for elections to the European Parliament. As many hon. Members may recall, the Act required the Electoral Commission to propose a region in England and Wales with which the citizens of Gibraltar could participate in European parliamentary elections. The region chosen was the south-west. I understand that in European elections since that Act Gibraltarians have been enfranchised appropriately and have taken part enthusiastically in those elections. Indeed, they will have the opportunity to vote again with the south-west region in the upcoming European elections next May.
	Given how deeply divided the Conservative party is on Europe and how little influence Tory MEPs have, I hope that Gibraltarians will vote Labour, and that they will remember that it was only because of the intervention of Labour’s Front Bench in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and certain Back Benchers—I should give an honourable mention in dispatches to the hon. Member for Cheltenham—that their situation got any recognition at all.
	After the Committee stage of the Bill had begun, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East wrote to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar explaining why she had tabled amendments to the Bill over the summer. The Chief Minister recently wrote back to her suggesting a slight tweak to the amendments. That is why her amendments were withdrawn earlier this week and I tabled amendment 63 to probe further the intentions of the Bill’s promoter and the Minister. I welcome the fact that, albeit very belatedly, the Bill’s promoter has tabled amendment 80. Given that the Minister for Europe has confirmed his support for that amendment, I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division.
	I turn to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred at some length to the amendment, too, as well as to his own similar amendment regarding the position of the citizens of Britain’s overseas territories. Britain has some 14 overseas territories encompassing a diverse range of cultures and communities across the world. They range from the tiny Pitcairn Island, with its 47 inhabitants, to Bermuda, with a population of over 62,000.
	Some overseas British territories will be particularly familiar to Members in all parts of the House; others less so. The Falkland Islands, for example, is well known to many in this House and is itself very familiar with the business of referendums. At the referendum on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands this March, 99.8% of its people voted to remain a British territory.
	An astonishing turnout of 92% meant that only three votes were cast against the Falkland Islands staying with the UK. One could not then argue that Falkland islanders were disengaged with the political process. Yet should this Bill become law, the Prime Minister will be putting at risk the benefits that the Falkland islanders get through Britain’s membership of the European Union. I say again that we know from the CBI’s work this week that the Prime Minister is putting at risk more than £3,000 of every British household’s income in order to try to hold his party together.

Kevan Jones: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend, who is a London MP, takes The Northern Echo newspaper, but I recommend it to him. The Deputy Prime Minister has this morning rightly congratulated Nissan on its new generation of vehicles, but he has also pointed out that if we leave the EU, Nissan’s investment would go, too.

Gareth Thomas: I apologise to the editor of The Northern Echo because I do not take the paper regularly, although I have heard it is a very good read. I am aware that Nissan’s boss has said that if the UK leaves the EU, the company would have to reconsider its future strategy and investments. It is astonishing that the Prime Minister is willing to put at risk Nissan’s investment. I suspect that if Britain exits the EU the risk for the living standards of Falkland islanders, like those of Gibraltarians, will be even greater than that for British households.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just Nissan’s investment that will be put at risk, but Hitachi’s excellent new investment in the north-east of England for making trains? Does he also agree that it is ironic that, when the groundbreaking ceremony took place at the Newton Aycliffe site last Friday, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) showed up for a photo opportunity? It is blatant that if this Bill progresses and we leave the EU, that investment and those jobs would not be in the north-east.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is a tragedy that the hon. Member for Stockton South, who is responsible for this Bill, is not in his place to defend his actions.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Obviously, lots of things are said in this Chamber, but I am duty bound to point out that the hon. Member for Stockton South has been present for most of the time and that he informed the Chair that he needed to pop out for a few minutes. Although speculation is rife, I am sure he will be back very soon.

Gareth Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman does come back soon, I would certainly be willing to accept an intervention from him so that he can defend his behaviour.

Chris Williamson: I note that my hon. Friend does not take The Northern Echo, but does he take the Derby Evening Telegraph? Just down the road from where the paper is based is the Toyota factory, which was the biggest inward investment in western Europe when it was made. It is clear that, were it not for Britain’s membership of the European Union, that investment would not have come to the UK and to Derbyshire. It has benefitted my constituency and the county and
	created thousands upon thousands of jobs. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the impact that this Bill and leaving the EU would have on Toyota?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are talking about the specific amendments, which are about the franchise. I cannot quite see how they stretch as far as Toyota, unless the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is going to enlighten me.

Gareth Thomas: I hope to come to the amendments on the possibility of giving 16 and 17-year-olds—some of whom may be looking forward to a career in Toyota—the right to vote. Let me clarify that I do not read the Derby Evening Telegraph. I happen to think that the Harrow Observer and the Harrow Times are the better newspapers to read.

Seema Malhotra: I could, of course, introduce the Hounslow Chronicle to the competition, but I will refrain from doing so.
	On extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, does my hon. Friend agree that they should have a say in this incredibly important debate and referendum, given the importance of the stability of the UK economy for their future? Roughly half the European headquarters of non-EU firms are based in the UK—more than most other countries put together. This issue will have a tremendous impact on youth unemployment and potential jobs in the future.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come to the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds shortly.
	The benefits that Falkland islanders enjoy on account of Britain’s membership of the European Union are not insignificant. I was surprised on Monday when the Minister for Europe confirmed to me in a written parliamentary answer that the Government had made no preparations for the UK leaving the European Union. There are no transitional arrangements in case the people of Britain vote no. Presumably, there has also been no thought about the consequences of a possible exit for the Falkland Islands or any other overseas territory. We have the astonishing situation of the Prime Minister sleepwalking towards an exit from the European Union with no thought of the consequences for British citizens or for our overseas territories.
	I have spoken about the trade advantages that the overseas territories gain from being linked to the European Union. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is not in his place, because he is certainly aware of the significant fishing interests that the Falkland Islands have in relation to trade with the European Union. As well as the trade advantages, the overseas territories also benefit from the European development fund. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, the 11th European development fund has allocated just over €4 million to the Falkland Islands, with further payments expected to start from early-2014.
	Many other overseas territories have benefited from the European development fund. Montserrat, a territory that I have had the pleasure of visiting, has been in need of support ever since the Soufrière Hills volcano, which had been dormant for centuries, erupted and buried the island’s capital, Plymouth. As my hon. Friend the Member
	for Glasgow North East said, Montserrat received almost €16 million from the last European development fund for infrastructure and other development. Anguilla has received €12 million, St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha have received some €16.6 million, and the Pitcairn Islands have received about €2.4 million.
	In the recent European Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds):
	“Have any discussions begun with overseas territories about the possible loss of EDF funding and their beneficiary trade deals with other European countries?”
	Bearing in mind that Government Members hope to persuade the British people of the Eurosceptic case for Britain to vote to leave the European Union, his response was that
	“talking about hypothetical situations that are years away is dangerous, and asking questions based on assumptions, however real they may or may not be, is not necessarily a good use of time.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 23 October 2013; c. 20.]
	Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State ought to have a word with the Prime Minister, who offered exactly such a scenario when he pledged to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in 2017. That pledge was based on fragile assumptions about negotiations that not only have not started yet, but during which the Prime Minister has no idea what he hopes to achieve or simply will not tell this House what he hopes to achieve.
	I am therefore sympathetic to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South that seek to address the problem that the British overseas territories will be excluded from a matter that could have a detrimental effect not only on their income, but on their trading ability. I am interested to hear how the Minister can justify their exclusion. If the Minister and the promoter of the Bill are not minded to accept my hon. Friend’s amendments, perhaps they will consider amendment 70 in the next group, which would hardwire into any referendum the opportunity for the views of our friends in the overseas territories to be heard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South also tabled amendment 44 on the voting age for the proposed referendum. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke in his extremely well-received conference speech in September of the need to make 16 and 17-year-olds part of our democracy. I suspect that Government Members did not see that bit of his speech, because they were at sixes and sevens over another part of it. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend’s clear commitment to the democratic enfranchisement of our young people. It would send a strong signal to young people who are suffering disproportionately under the current Government—people who have lost their education maintenance allowance, whose tuition fees will treble, and who are going through an often disheartening and bleak time searching for a job. Amendment 44 could send a powerful signal of the House’s intent to listen to the concerns of 16 and 17-year-olds.
	The Prime Minister once famously asked us all to hug a hoodie. I think that according to the Daily Mail, it is now just “hug a Tory”. I do not suggest such bizarre measures, but I do suggest that we should listen to what young people have to say.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In fact, in having discussed Crown dependencies, overseas territories and so on, we can look at some of those places, such as the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, for examples of where 16 to 18-year-olds can vote. If we look close to home, we can learn some lessons.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I have not looked at those examples, because I have been spending so much time reading through the Committee proceedings on the Bill. However, I accept that there are other good examples to point to.

Graham Jones: Does my hon. Friend not find it rather strange that 16 and 17-year-olds are not being given a vote under the Bill whereas they are in the Scottish referendum? That seems anomalous and bizarre. Surely they should be given a vote in the EU referendum should the Bill succeed.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a good point and, in a moment, I will come to an even more bizarre twist related to the Scottish referendum and the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds.
	I cannot be alone in having received letters and e-mails over the past few weeks from young people who are undertaking their citizenship coursework. I have received petitions on such meaty topics as euthanasia, homelessness and child poverty, and each time I have been struck by how well informed and engaged young people are with some of the big issues facing the country. If Conservative Members are to be believed, Europe is the single biggest of those issues.

Seema Malhotra: Does my hon. Friend agree that sending a positive message today about votes for 16 and 17-year-olds would be timely given that the UK Youth Parliament will be sitting in the Chamber next week and discussing a range of matters, including votes at 16 and 17?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Home Secretary were to endorse the idea of 16 and 17-year-olds taking part in any referendum under the Bill, that would send a great message about the potential for them to take part in all our elections in future.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is making a good speech, but he knows that I have a long track record of disagreeing with votes at 16. The most bizarre argument that people make is that we have to introduce the vote at 16, because the Scots are going to have it in the referendum. Since when does Alex Salmond decide this country’s constitutional procedures?

Gareth Thomas: I would not want to upset my hon. Friend further, but he makes a good point. I will come to the Scottish referendum in a moment.
	I have never bought the argument that young people are not interested in politics, even if, sadly, like the rest of the country, they do not hold politicians in high regard at the moment. As my hon. Friend might recognise, there is a palpable disconnect between many young people and the political process. I believe there is consensus throughout the House that we must address the worrying
	trend of poor voter turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds, and amendment 44 could help with that ambition. I understand that people in that section of our society are among the least likely to vote. One MORI poll showed that only 39% of 18 to 24-year-olds were likely to vote, which is a worrying statistic.
	We know that voting habits are formed at a young age, so if someone votes at the first election for which they are eligible, they are more likely to continue voting for the remainder of their life. Would it not be sensible for young people to have their first voting experience—in this case in a possible referendum—collectively while still at school or college? When I visit schools or colleges throughout the parliamentary year—it is particularly interesting to visit sixth forms and colleges at general election time—I see the excitement of some of those potential first-time voters who are carefully weighing up everything being said and deciding in whom to put their trust. Whenever there is an election or referendum, should we not be able to go into schools, sixth forms and colleges and talk to all those young people over the age of 16, and tell them that we value their views?

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about 16 and 17-year-olds voting, and he is right to talk about engaging people in schools. When I go to high schools and speak to 16 and 17-year-olds, they are much more engaged in the political debate now they know they will have a vote in the Scottish referendum. In fact, they are so engaged in political debate that the vast majority are voting no.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and perhaps I could encourage him to have a further conversation outside the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). By including 16 and 17-year-olds in a debate, we would be involving in this discussion about a referendum an often passionate voice. If this issue is of such importance, as Conservative Members seem to believe, should not those with their lives ahead of them and those facing the particular challenges I have outlined—jobs, university fees and so on—have their voice heard too? Without the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, 16 and 17-year-olds will be excluded.

Seema Malhotra: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gareth Thomas: Let me make a little progress. There is an old adage that young people grow up too quickly these days, but I think we must consider fairly the responsibilities that already rest on some young shoulders at 16. Young people are old enough to go to work, join our armed forces and have children—they even have to pay full fare on the bus unless they are still in full-time education. If they earn enough, they have to pay tax. With all those responsibilities, we suggest that they should also have the right to vote and have their say along with the rest of the country in any elections and referendums.

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you follow the rules of the House closely, and clearly the rules on photography in the Chamber are very strict. As you know, this morning I have been keeping a close eye on the Box, and I was aware that a minute ago one of its occupants was holding up his mobile phone. I do not know whether he
	inadvertently did not know the rules on filming proceedings, and I ask for your guidance on that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dawn Primarolo: It is quite simple: photography in the Chamber is not allowed by anybody. I am sure that those on the Treasury Benches are capable of ensuring that that includes civil servants in the Box.

Kevan Jones: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept that point, but would it be in order for Mr Speaker, or someone else, to check that the individual was not filming in the Chamber?

Dawn Primarolo: I am advised that we can ask a Doorkeeper to undertake that should it be necessary.

James Wharton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Dawn Primarolo: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 293, Noes 32.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Eleanor Laing: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

Graham Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: No points of order are taken during a Division.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 299, Noes 0.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	New clause 1 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Chris Williamson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this morning, I sought to make a point of order on whether there was a precedent for the use of imperial legislation. I drew the comparison between imperial legislation—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would bear with me a second—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order.

Chris Williamson: I sought Mr Speaker’s guidance on whether imperial legislation was being used to cover divisions among Government Members. Mr Speaker’s response was that that did not qualify as a point of order, and he suggested that I should—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should bear with me. He suggested that I should make that point during the debate. However, I was unfortunately unable to be called in the debate. I wonder whether Mr Speaker—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman can resume his seat. He has already attempted to make a point of order. He has received an answer from Mr Speaker, and he may well have an opportunity at some point in the future to make a debating point during a debate, but it is not a point of order.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union

William Bain: I beg to move amendment 68,page1,line3, at end insert—
	‘(1A) Before the appointment of the day on which the referendum is to be held, the Secretary of State shall consult the bodies listed in the Schedule (Organisations to be consulted before a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union) on the merits or otherwise of the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union and shall lay before Parliament a report of the consultation.’.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 76,page1,line4, leave out subsection 2.
	Amendment 21,page1,line4, leave out from ‘held’ to end of line 6 and insert ‘on 7 May 2015’.
	Amendment 3,page1,line4, leave out ‘before 31 December 2017’ and insert ‘on 23 October 2014’.
	Amendment 25,page1,line4, leave out ‘31 December 2017’ and insert ‘1 July 2017’.
	Amendment 22,page1,line4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2014’.
	Amendment 23,page1,line4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2015’.
	Amendment 24,page1,line4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2016’.
	Amendment 26,page1,line4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2018’.
	Amendment 27,page1,line4, leave out ‘2017’ and insert ‘2019’.
	Amendment 77,page1,line4, after ‘2017’, insert ‘and not between 31 July and 1 December 2017’.
	Amendment 4,page1,line5, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 58,page1,line5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	‘(3) The Secretary of State shall establish a European Union Referendum Commission to consider the date or dates on which the referendum is to be held.
	(3A) The Commission shall report to the Secretary of State within 12 months of its establishment.
	(3B) The Secretary of State shall by order provide for the date or dates to be implemented as recommended by the Commission.’.
	Amendment 59,page1,line5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	‘(3A) The Commission shall consult with and seek to secure agreement from the devolved administrations on the date or dates to be appointed for the referendum.’.
	Amendment 62,page1,line5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	‘(3) The date shall be appointed in accordance with the conclusions of the Speaker’s Committee for the Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, as established under Schedule (Speaker’s Committee for the Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union).’.
	Amendment 28,page1,line5, leave out ‘31 December 2016’ and insert ‘7 May 2015’.
	Amendment 31,page1,line5, leave out ‘31 December 2016’ and insert ‘1 July 2017’.
	Amendment 29,page1,line5, leave out ‘2016’ and insert ‘2014’.
	Amendment 30,page1,line5, leave out ‘2016’ and insert ‘2015’.
	Amendment 32,page1,line5, leave out ‘2016’ and insert ‘2017’.
	Amendment 33,page1,line5, leave out ‘2016’ and insert ‘2018’.
	Amendment 12,page1,line6, at end insert—
	‘(3A) Before appointing the day on which the referendum is to be held under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult leaders of the principal faiths represented in the United Kingdom so as to identify days which it would be inappropriate for him to appoint for holding the referendum, and he shall pay due regard to the outcome of those consultations in appointing the day.’.
	Amendment 13,page1,line6, at end insert—
	‘(7) The day on which the referendum is to be held shall not be the same day as—
	(a) a general election for the United Kingdom Parliament;
	(b) elections to the European Parliament;
	(c) a Scottish parliamentary general election;
	(d) a Welsh Assembly general election;
	(e) a general election for members of the Northern Ireland Assembly;
	(f) any local government election;
	(g) a mayoral election in London; and
	the terms above shall be defined as in section 4 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.’.
	Amendment 70,page1,line6, at end insert ‘, subject to subsection (3A) below.
	‘(3A) The Secretary of State may not appoint a day on which the referendum is to be held until he has published a detailed analysis of the consequences of the United Kingdom—
	(a) remaining, or
	(b) not remaining a member of the European Union, including—
	(i) the economic and social consequences of withdrawal from the European Union for the people of the United Kingdom,
	(ii) the consequences for the United Kingdom’s overseas territories,
	(iii) the consequences for prevention of crime and terrorism in the United Kingdom,
	(iv) the consequences for climate change and the environment of the United Kingdom, and
	(v) the consequences for the effectiveness of the foreign policy of the United Kingdom.’.
	Amendment 78,page1,line6, at end insert—
	‘(3A) The date appointed under subsection 1(3) must not be less than 28 weeks in advance of the proposed polling day.’.
	Amendment 9,page1,line14, at end add—
	‘(7) The referendum shall be held on Thursday.’.
	Amendment 10,page1,line14, at end add—
	‘(7) The referendum shall be held over two days on a Saturday and Sunday.’.
	Amendment 11,page1,line14, at end add—
	‘(7) The referendum shall be held over three days on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.’.
	New schedule 1—‘Speaker’s Committee for the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union—
	( ) There is to be a committee known as the Speaker’s Committee for the Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (“the Committee”) to consider the day to be appointed for the referendum.
	( ) The Speaker’s Committee shall consist of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be the chair of the Committee, and the following other members, namely—
	(a) the Member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons;
	(b) the Lord President of the Council;
	(c) a Member of the House of Commons who is a Minister of the Crown with responsibilities in relation to foreign affairs; and
	(d) five Members of the House of Commons who are not Ministers of the Crown.
	( ) The member of the Committee specified in subsection (2)(c) shall be appointed to membership of the Committee by the Prime Minister.
	( ) The members of the Committee specified in subsection (2)(d) shall be appointed to membership of the Committee by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
	( ) The Speaker’s Committee shall make a report to the House of Commons on the exercise by the Committee of their functions.’.
	New schedule 2—“Organisations to be consulted before a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union—
	(a) the Confederation for British Industry,
	(b) the National Farmers Union,
	(c) the Trades Union Congress,
	(d) the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux,
	(e) the Association of Chief Police Officers,
	(f) Universities UK,
	(g) the National Council of Voluntary Organisations,
	(h) Friends of the Earth,
	(i) the Local Government Association, and
	(j) other organisations as the Secretary of State shall see fit.’.

William Bain: It is a pleasure to speak in the Chamber for the first time under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a delight.
	I shall speak to amendments 68 and 70, in my name, as well as new schedule 2, which is also in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). The reason why this group of amendments is so important is that the discussions between the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), and the Government have been in many ways one-sided. It has been an internal discussion within the Conservative party. It is time that that discussion is broadened out to include all the interest groups and all the people of this country who would be affected by the Bill and who would be affected—in my view, very badly indeed—if Britain chose to withdraw from the European Union.

Edward Leigh: Does the Labour party accept the principle that there should be a referendum at all?

Hon. Members: Answer!

William Bain: The answer remains the same as on Second Reading: we do not believe that now is the right time to focus on this kind of agenda. The problem is that the hon. Gentleman is in search of a treaty but with no idea about the reform. We in the Opposition know what reforms we want in the European Union, but we have not had support from the Conservatives and the other Government Members. That is the difference between our two positions.
	It is interesting to notice that when the House has to rely on the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who once toured the country in a truck proclaiming “24 hours to save the pound,” as any kind of moderating influence on the Conservative party on Europe, it shows what a path of self-destruction that party has embarked upon on Europe.
	Amendments 68 and 70 would ensure that there was proper consultation with the CBI, the TUC, the National Farmers Union and many other interest groups across our country that would be seriously affected if there were a vote to withdraw.

Ian Murray: This is the crux of a very important debate not just about the Bill, but in general about membership of the European Union. Does my hon. Friend think the Government will object to the amendment on the basis that they do not want to hear the answers from those august organisations because they disagree with the Government’s position?

William Bain: My hon. Friend points to the inconvenient truth for the Government and for the promoter of the Bill that we have already had some of the answers this week, with the CBI setting out that the benefit of being part of the European Union means that every household is £3,000 a year better off and every individual in this country is at least £1,200 a year better off. What is clear from the Bill is that neither its promoter nor the Government have any idea about the consequences of a yes vote, because they cannot say on what terms they wish the UK to remain part of the EU, and even more damagingly, they cannot set out the consequences or implications of a no vote.

Seema Malhotra: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent London Chamber of Commerce report “Help or hindrance? The value of EU membership to UK business”, which states that the majority of its members believe that exiting the EU would negatively impact on their business and the UK’s economy, and that this supports the view expressed by the CBI?

William Bain: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She will know as well as business, the trade unions and many other organisations in this country that as part of the European Union, we are party to 36 free trade agreements with more than 50 other partners across the world. She will also know, as the CBI knows, that we have the prospect of concluding negotiations with Japan, the United States and Canada that will increase the market for our goods in those countries to a potential £47 trillion a year. These are all goals that would be lost if we chose to leave the European Union.

Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that a free trade agreement has recently been agreed with Canada. Another was agreed about 18 months ago with South Korea. Both of those are clearly of great benefit to British companies. The South Korean one has led to a massive increase in UK exports to South Korea. Does he agree that by leaving the EU we would put in jeopardy not only the free trade agreement with the US, but the prospect of Britain benefiting from the markets made accessible by EU free trade arrangements with other parts of the world?

William Bain: My hon. Friend is right. The prospect of having to renegotiate 130 separate free trade agreements with partners across the globe is a truly desperate and scary one for business and exporters in this country. The reason that we need amendments 68 and 70 and new schedule 2 is to make sure that the Government address systematically the crucial points that the CBI made in its study this week.
	What are the implications of a no vote? What are the implications of leaving? The CBI said this week that going it alone as a sole country within the World Trade Organisation, without the collective strength that negotiating power within the EU gives us, would see us lose influence
	and trade. The CBI said that the Norway option of leaving the European Union but remaining in the European economic area—although, as we know, Norway is a net contributor to the EU budget—was a weaker option, and that the Swiss option of pick-and-choose bilateral agreements was also a weaker option for the United Kingdom. Moreover, it said that the Turkish option of simply having a customs union with the European Union was the worst of all the halfway alternatives.

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman is quoting the CBI. Is this the same CBI that said that the UK would face economic ruination if it did not join the euro?

William Bain: I am somewhat perplexed. The Conservative party has for decades, if not centuries, marketed itself as the party of business, but we now find Conservative Members in complete opposition to what the CBI is saying is in the best economic interests of this country. I think that most people will find that staggering.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

William Bain: Yes.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am reading the amendment very carefully. It talks about the need to consult before the referendum
	“on the merits or otherwise of the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union”,
	but is that a pretext for us now to have a debate about the merits or otherwise of remaining in the European Union, or should we stick to the amendment?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is correct to suggest that it is not a pretext. I am listening very carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), and if he strays into the area that the hon. Gentleman has suggested he might, then he will not be allowed to stray further.

William Bain: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is very good to make my first intervention under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will comply with your very helpful guidance.
	I suggest that my hon. Friend’s amendment and the other amendments to do with the timing of a vote are a distraction, because the timing is about what is politically more advantageous. The point is that the National Farmers Union and the Food and Drink Federation, which represents the biggest manufacturing sector in this country, have echoed the CBI’s words. For many people, it is not about timing—it is about getting out of the EU.

William Bain: My hon. Friend is entirely right. As a specialist in the common agricultural policy and the needs of our rural economy, he knows that it is incumbent on the Government to spell out the consequences of
	leaving the European Union—what a yes vote in the referendum would mean and what a no vote would mean.
	It is intriguing that the CBI, having requested more information and explored the potential consequences of a vote to leave the European Union, concluded:
	“While the UK could certainly survive outside the EU, none of the alternatives suggested offers a clear path to an improved balance of advantages and disadvantages or greater influence.”

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman is using this debate as a vehicle to make the CBI’s case in favour of membership of the European Union. That is not the subject of the amendment, which he should be sticking to.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am certain that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) will not use the next few minutes to do what the hon. Gentleman has suggested he might. I am sure that he will stick very carefully to discussing those who will be consulted within the strict terms of his amendment and no further.

William Bain: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Through these amendments, I seek to give Parliament and, indeed, many interest groups in wider society the degree of consultation that was given in the 1975 referendum.

Ian Murray: The CBI has consulted its members and said that eight out of 10 of them, including 77% of small and medium-sized enterprises, say that we should remain within the European Union. That is why it is important that this amendment is accepted, so that the number of bodies that are consulted on this very important constitutional change is as wide as possible.

William Bain: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
	It is interesting to explain the purpose behind these amendments, and I can best do so by contrasting the referendum proposed in this Bill with the referendum that was held in 1975, when two White Papers were issued on the terms of the renegotiation between the United Kingdom and our European partners. That was prior to the Bill’s publication and its being presented to Parliament. When Parliament was asked on that occasion to consider legislation to establish a referendum, it knew the full details of what the implications of a no vote and, indeed, a yes vote would be for the electorate. That is what my amendments seek to put into the Bill, because, as drafted, it simply does not achieve that aim.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In probing amendment 68, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he envisages consulting organisations such as the Farmers Union of Wales, NFU Cymru and the National Farmers Union in Scotland and in England? That would be important because of their specific interests in the European Union and because they have expressed their clear desire not to leave.

William Bain: That is correct and I agree with my hon. Friend in his ambition to make sure that when the Government produce proper documents to accompany any referendum, they take into account the interests of
	farmers and the rural economy. Leaving the EU would have profound implications for this country’s farming industry.

Daniel Kawczynski: I have received representations from Shropshire farmers who very much want to remain in the European Union, but they will have the chance to be consulted, and to vote, in the referendum. Why do we need a separate process beforehand?

William Bain: If I may point out some of the problems with the hon. Gentleman’s argument, the reason for my amendments is that when a similar referendum was held in 1975, this House had had the benefit of two White Papers, a full debate and a full consultation. None of that has accompanied this Bill. It is because the interests of the farming industry, exporters and workers—whose rights at work might be diminished by the renegotiations—have not been considered that we should put the amendments in the Bill. The Government need to consult on the real interests of this country, not simply have an internal conversation within the Conservative party.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Perhaps I have a helpful suggestion with regard to amendment 68. When Wales held a referendum on the Government of Wales Act 2006, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) pulled together wider civic society. A similar action with regard to this Bill would particularly help Wales, which benefits to the tune of roughly £40 of surplus per head as a result of farming and structural funds. We could pull voices together if the amendment is agreed to.

William Bain: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
	I want to further explain the reasons for and rationale behind my amendments by examining the context of the referendum that will take place on these islands, in Scotland, next year. I may have my differences with the UK Government, but I entirely agree with the way in which they have published a series of detailed, factual accounts looking at the consequences for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom of Scotland’s leaving the UK. They have explored the consequences for macro-economic policy and the impact on trade, financial services and business. The publications have been produced by the Government even before the Scottish Parliament has fully passed its legislation to establish the question for next year’s referendum. If that process is good enough for the referendum in Scotland, it should be good enough for any referendum that the Bill’s promoter and the Government are keen to have.

Ian Lucas: Is not the key point that the Conservative party cannot even carry the Government, of which it is a member, to produce a White Paper, because the Liberal Democrats, who are also in the Government, would not support it? The Conservative party is so weak and divided that it cannot even produce its own White Paper.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) will recognise that the intervention, however much merit it might have, is not pertinent to the matter being debated.

William Bain: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that this issue receives a similar assessment to what we have seen in Scotland. There should be an assessment of the impact on business of having different technical standards to meet if bilateral agreements have to be made with our EU partners instead of the comprehensive right of free trade that we have at the moment.

Robert Halfon: The referendum will not be tomorrow, but in 2017. There will be plenty of time for White Papers and consultations with whoever the hon. Gentleman likes, whether it is the CBI or anyone else. Are not his amendments a Trojan horse because he and his party do not want a referendum and do not want to give the British people a say in whether or not we remain in the European Union?

William Bain: We are trying to clarify what the Government and the promoter of the Bill want the public to have a say on. They have not said what terms they would accept to stay in the EU and they have not explained what the consequences would be if we had to leave the EU following a referendum. That is the information that we need, but it has been denied to the House and the country so far.

Barry Sheerman: I am certainly not anti-referendum. However, when a Bill is introduced through the back door by manipulating private Members’ business, it shortcuts all the proper procedures and safeguards. We argued in Committee that those safeguards should be introduced into the Bill.

William Bain: That is a pertinent and well made point.

Helen Goodman: Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), is it the case that the Bill has received no pre-legislative scrutiny and that no evidence has been taken?

William Bain: Sadly, that is correct. Before I became a Member of this House, I watched with great enthusiasm the passage of equivalent pieces of legislation, such as the devolution legislation of 1997, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the House of Lords Act 1999. Those Acts were of prime constitutional importance and they were well scrutinised by this House and the implications were well debated by Members. We have simply not seen that with this Bill.

Mike Gapes: Is not the reason for this strange arrangement that there could be no consultation because it would never have been agreed to in Government? We therefore have the bizarre process of debating a private Member’s Bill that is backed by Ministers.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Once again, I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) will recognise that that intervention was not in order because it did not relate to the matter in hand.

William Bain: Thank you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	There is an even stronger parallel to be drawn between the amendment and the Scottish referendum. The Government claimed rightly in January 2012 that setting an arbitrary date four years in the future for a referendum on a plan for Scotland to separate from the United Kingdom would create unnecessary uncertainty for inward investment and business. How can the Government believe that it is appropriate to have four years of uncertainty before a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union? Surely the same argument applies, particularly given that the EU referendum, unlike its Scottish counterpart, would be conducted on the basis of a pre-negotiated treaty to alter the conditions of membership, which the Prime Minister may not even be able to achieve.
	Let us not forget that the Prime Minister hopes to pull off the coup of negotiating such a treaty at a time when the UK will hold the presidency of the EU and ought to be prioritising the completion of the single market and boosting growth, jobs and trade; when there will just have been a French presidential election; and in the run-up to the next German federal elections. The window for getting the type of treaty that the Prime Minister believes is possible will be very small.
	Where is the intellectual consistency between the arguments that the Prime Minister made in relation to Scotland, which were addressed in the Edinburgh agreement, and the case that the Bill’s promoter and the Minister have made today about the terms that they seek for 2017? We need business, unions such as the National Farmers Union and the voluntary sector to be consulted about their views on the timing of any referendum and the implications of leaving the EU.
	If political circumstances necessitated a broader referendum, Members would consider them. However, the Bill in its current form would defeat the national interest, not serve it, and weaken, not strengthen our ability to build the alliances in the EU that we need now. We need to strengthen the Bill, so I urge the House to support amendments 68 and 70 and new schedule 2.

Adam Afriyie: It has been a bit of a bumpy ride for me getting to today, to say the least—particularly among colleagues—but I rise to support a 2014 referendum. We Conservatives are completely united in wanting to give the British people a voice on Europe. We would have had a referendum by now if the Liberal Democrats had not held us back in the coalition. It is disgraceful that Labour Members want to gag British people and deny them a say on this incredibly important issue, even though eight out of 10 of our constituents want to have their voice heard on Europe. It strikes me that, at a time when the majority of our constituents—

Helen Goodman: rose—

Adam Afriyie: I will not give way, because Members are—

Helen Goodman: This is a point of order.
	On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to give us his general overview of the political situation in this country when he is supposed to be debating these particular amendments to this particular Bill?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her point. At the moment, the hon. Gentleman is giving a general introduction to his remarks, but he will undoubtedly come very quickly to the crux of his argument, and I am quite certain that he will then stick precisely to the amendments.

Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have a great deal of time for the honesty of the stand that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) takes on the matter, but I object to his attributing to me and the Opposition attitudes that are not true. We are not against a referendum—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. If he wishes to engage in debate with the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), I am sure he can seek to intervene in due course.

Adam Afriyie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your wise words. I am speaking specifically about a 2014 referendum, which is proposed in amendment 22 and my amendment 3.

Charles Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Adam Afriyie: I will take one intervention, but I am trying to get through my speech.

Charles Walker: I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sorry for being one of the bumps in the bumpy ride that he has had. He has taken his admonishment in good grace.
	May I suggest to my hon. Friend that if we have a referendum in 2017, as proposed in the Bill, we will have more time to make our argument and persuade the British people of what is in their interest?

Adam Afriyie: As I said, we are completely united as a party in wanting to give the British people a say. There are differences between us on timing, and I will come to that point in a moment.
	It strikes me that, at a time when the majority of our constituents want a referendum before the next election, I have never known a period in British politics when the political establishment has been so disconnected from public opinion, and so remote from, opposed to and out of touch with it. Politicians have wilfully kicked the can further and further down the road, and we will be in danger of doing that again if neither my amendment 3 nor amendment 22 is supported.

William Cash: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Adam Afriyie: I will not give way any more, because I am conscious that the Opposition want to talk out the Bill, and I do not want to be part of that process.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition are trying to talk out the Bill, but interventions are being made by Government Members. May I, through your good offices, ask him to reconsider?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order and that nobody is talking out anything in this Chamber—there is no such action. The only words that will be allowed in the Chamber today are those entirely in order with proceedings.

Adam Afriyie: Again, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your wise words on all matters under debate.
	We as politicians have kicked the can down the road for generation after generation, and we are in danger of doing so again today. I ask a simple question: if not in this Parliament, when else can we be sure to secure a referendum? My amendment and amendment 22 offer a way forward. I say in all humility and kindness to my colleagues that, by chasing the EU referendum dream for 2017, we risk losing one in 2014 and throwing away the 2015 election. I urge every hon. Member to listen to their constituents and to try, through one of the amendments, to grant the British people a referendum in 2014.

Peter Hain: May I also express my delight at seeing you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and respond briefly to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) by asking whether he has so little confidence that his party will win the next general election that that is the reason for rushing to an early referendum?
	I wish to speak to amendments 77 and 78, which I tabled. Amendment 77 would ensure that if there is a referendum in 2017, as the Government propose, it would not fall during the UK’s presidency of the European Union. It would be absurd to have a referendum process running conterminously with our presidency of the EU. Amendment 78 would ensure that there would be a delay of at least 28 weeks—roughly seven months—between setting a date by order for a referendum, and the referendum itself, to allow for full consultation. That point is the burden of my contribution today.
	I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and new schedule 2, to which I have added my name, which also calls for greater consultation. I am worried that Britain may be sleepwalking into withdrawal from the European Union without realising that that would be the result of circumstances created first by the Prime Minister’s referendum timetable, and secondly by the Bill. An exit would be catastrophic for British jobs and prosperity, which is why any referendum, and particularly any date for a referendum as specified in amendments, should be considered only after the fullest possible formal consultation with the British people.

Brian Binley: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why an exit would cause the loss of loads of jobs in this country when we have a balance of payments deficit with the EU of some £70 billion?

Peter Hain: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raises that issue as I will deal with it later on and call for greater consultation on the matter. Unless the facts are revealed objectively and all organisations are properly consulted, people will not be in a position to make a sensible decision about whether to vote yes or no in the referendum he seeks.
	The great flaw in the Bill is that it proposes no such consultation and there is no obligation on the Government to consult anybody. Other than a campaign that will be compressed into a particular period, and the inevitable media focus at the time, there is no sense that everybody will be involved in the great debate on an historic issue for the future of Britain, and indeed Europe. The Bill sets an arbitrary time limit without placing any obligation on the Government to consult. The referendum itself will be the only “consultation”—by bouncing voters into a decision by the end of 2017 or, if the hon. Member for Windsor gets his way, by October 2014.
	For example, the business community needs to be properly consulted—paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 specifies how it could be consulted. The CBI, to which specific reference is made in the new schedule, recently reported that eight out of 10 of its members, including roughly the same proportion of its small and medium-sized enterprise members, said that they would vote for the UK to remain a member of the EU if a referendum were held tomorrow. The CBI should be properly consulted, not simply presented with a referendum on an arbitrary date. Nearly three quarters of CBI member businesses reported that the UK’s membership of the EU has had a positive overall impact on their business. They should be consulted, too, so that everybody, whether employees or management, can transmit their view to the wider community.

Edward Leigh: Labour Members appear to want to consult the CBI, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, which is fair enough, but are they in favour of consulting the British people in a referendum—yes or no?

Peter Hain: Labour has never been afraid of consulting people in referendums. We have called more referendums in our history than any other party. Labour is the only party that ever called a referendum on the EU—the Conservatives took us into membership of the Common Market without one. Labour Members have never been afraid to consult the people, and we have specified the circumstances in which we would hold a referendum.
	Despite CBI member companies’ frustrations with many aspects of EU membership, which, as a pro-European, I share, more than half of them—some 52%—say that they have directly benefited from the introduction of common European standards. Only 15% suggested that that had had a negative impact. A consultation would reveal that and enable it to be properly debated, assessed and considered.
	Those CBI members believe that UK influence has helped to maximise the openness of the EU. Some 72% of British businesses believe that the UK has a significant influence on EU policies that affect them.

Bob Stewart: I would have thought that those points of view would come out in the campaign, so why would we need consultation? Surely, in the yes, no or whatever campaigns, the various interests groups would directly lobby the British people, rather than MPs.

Peter Hain: I have taken every intervention that hon. Members have wished to make and I want to make progress, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point first. As an experienced politician, he, like all hon. Members, knows that, in the din and pressure of a three-week
	campaign, with all the focus that that brings, it is very difficult to get all the arguments across. We need a proper assessment so that the British public have the chance to make their minds up, free from the influence of Eurosceptic newspapers, which dominate the debate. They should make their minds up on the facts by consulting the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Directors and other such organisations. Those organisations will want their say, and the way to achieve that is through proper consultation, for which the Bill does not provide.
	The City is a significant institution that will need to be consulted, which could be achieved under paragraph (j) of new schedule 2. According to the evidence we have, such a consultation would reveal that the City takes the same view as the CBI—it believes that British membership is positive for financial institutions. Why is the City not being consulted? Are the Government scared of consulting it? Is the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), the Bill’s promoter, scared of consulting it? Some 84% of Britain’s financial sector executives are strongly in favour of staying at the centre of the EU, according to a survey published in October by TheCityUK. Through a consultation, we could drill down into that and see whether it is a proper assessment.
	The financial services sector accounts for 13% of gross domestic product and contributes more than £60 billion in taxes. Nearly 80% of all foreign exchange trades in the EU take place in the City, as do 74% of all interest rate derivative trades. The idea that the City would want to be frogmarched out of Europe is complete nonsense, as a consultation would reveal.

William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman has massive pro-European credentials, as he puts it, so will he explain why he voted against the Maastricht treaty Bill on Third Reading?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because I am about to name-check him—and to answer his question.
	The City must be properly consulted, as new schedule 2 and amendment 68 would provide, and its concerns, like those of CBI members, need to be understood by the electorate well in advance of a short and compressed campaign so that voters are not bamboozled by newspapers and stampeded into a referendum.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman is making important points. I suspect that we probably agree on whether Britain should be in or out of the European Union, but he must accept that we do not really need a formal consultation exercise to find out what the CBI thinks. It said clearly, in a definitive report published on Monday:
	“While the UK can certainly survive outside the EU, none of the alternatives suggested offers a clear path to an improved balance of advantages and disadvantages or greater influence.”
	The CBI clearly wants us to stay in. Do we really need a consultation to establish that?

Peter Hain: What we need is for the Government to consult the CBI properly, not just stick a copy of its
	report into the Library. We need a report to Parliament, as amendment 68 suggests. It is a serious report by a serious organisation—

Barry Sheerman: Who would we consult about peace? We are coming up to Remembrance Sunday. In 1914, bad newspaper leaders and bad politicians led this country into war. The European Union has maintained prosperity and peace for all these years—are we going to give that up?

Peter Hain: I will come to that point when I discuss whether we should consult groups such as the Royal British Legion.

Susan Elan Jones: One consultee that my right hon. Friend proposes is the National Farmers Union. As urban areas are, by their nature, in the majority, those of us who represent rural areas are always fearful that the voice of rural Britain will be left out. Does he agree that it is of pivotal importance that farming groups are consulted?

Peter Hain: I do, and I am about to make that point.
	As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, I am a pro-European, but I am also a critical one. That is why amendments 77, 78 and 68 and new schedule 2 are important. I am not a Europhile who cannot see that the EU needs reform or who wants integration at all costs. I am a practical European. I voted yes in the 1975 referendum but, as an MP in 1992, I voted no in the House to the Maastricht treaty—with the hon. Gentleman, among others—because I did not think the foundations on which the euro was erected were the right ones. Time has probably proved that view correct.
	As Europe Minister over a decade ago, I was intensely frustrated with what I call the Brussels bubble, which is mainly inhabited by Commission officials, small-country Ministers and European parliamentarians. It exists in a world of its own, forming an elite and making the EU increasingly unpopular among its citizens. But—and this is the point of a proper consultation—none of this means that we should pull out, any more than Scottish frustrations with the Westminster bubble mean that Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom, or voters’ frustrations with all the major political parties, including Labour and Conservative, mean that they should give up on parliamentary democracy.
	We need systematic consultation with a report that Parliament can properly assess before deciding how to proceed. I am sure that the Royal British Legion, if consulted, would have something to say. Just imagine if, at the end of the second world war, Monnet and others had concluded that 80 years of bitter Franco-German hatred made European unity impossible.
	The following 60 years of Franco-German reconciliation and EU achievement would never have occurred. That is a matter that organisations, particularly veterans organisations, should be properly consulted upon, under sub-paragraph (j) of new schedule 2. It is incumbent on our generation to find the means to take Europe forward on the global stage, not to retreat into reactionary isolationism.
	Amendment 68, like new schedule 2, would place an obligation on the Government to consult on all these matters. It is essential that we do so. The consultation
	would also be an opportunity to recognise that Europe’s first achievement was to remove the internal tariff barriers that held back growth and prosperity across the whole continent, including Britain. We accepted that, especially with globalisation, our interests were best served by bringing down barriers, which enabled Europe to act as one unit in trade and become a more powerful, if as yet imperfect, force for trade liberalisation under internationally agreed common rules. Again, we could be talking to the business sector and exporters about that, if the Government had the courage. It makes me wonder why they do not. Have they got a reason to be worried about a proper consultation?
	Consultation under these amendments would also give us the opportunity to remind everybody—in particular, it would give the older generation a chance to remind younger citizens voting in this referendum, if it happens—that Europe’s success in reconciling once-bitter foes established and consolidated peace and democracy across the EU. It is important that there be proper consultation, that this be assessed and that Parliament have a chance to reflect upon it. For example, EU enlargement, first to Greece, Spain and Portugal—countries that until relatively recently were fascist dictatorships—and now to former communist states in central and eastern Europe that were also under a form of dictatorship, has amply shown how the zone of stability, democracy and prosperity can be extended right across a continent on which more wars have been fought over the centuries than in any other part of the world.
	Similarly, with proper consultation—my amendment 78 suggests a minimum of 28 weeks—we could assess the impact of our being part of association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and of the continuing accession negotiations that the EU is conducting with Turkey. I believe it essential that those negotiations succeed, because Turkey is a vital bridge between Europe and Asia, west and east, Christianity and Islam. If we enter a referendum campaign in the heat and din of a three-week in/out squabble, none of these issues will be revealed, and that is why consultation is essential.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that consultation would also allow light to be shone on the work of the Centre for European Reform, which only this month produced 35 recommendations that were very much in line with his comments and none of which, they argued, needed our exit from the EU?

Peter Hain: Indeed, I think the CER does some very good work, and again I hope that under sub-paragraph (j) it will be properly consulted by the Government. It is a serious analyst. By the way, Eurosceptic organisations should be consulted as well under that sub-paragraph.
	A series of other organisations, some of them specified in the new schedule, including the Trades Union Congress, should be consulted, so that people can understand that the EU has brought with it policies to extend social, environmental and consumer rights. Without those, and despite the EU’s faults, we would not have as fair a society as we do today. Organisations such as Citizens Advice and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, specified in new schedule 2, could have their say as well.
	Consultation would provide another opportunity to recognise that Europe has its faults but that the remedy is to get in there and argue for a stronger reformed
	Europe, not for Britain to turn its back and walk away. Although it has become fashionable to criticise Euroland, a consultation would reveal that its productivity per hour worked is far higher than Britain’s. The work force are, sadly, more highly skilled, and public services such as health and transport are superior. Under new schedule 2, whether under sub-paragraph (g) or others, organisations such as the National Council of Voluntary Organisations would be able to express their view and say whether they agree with that assessment.
	Consultation would afford another opportunity. The continentals probably have something to learn from our better record on employability and our more flexible market. Equally, it would reveal that we need to acknowledge that our employees are far less protected and subject to much greater job insecurity than those on the continent. Consultation with the TUC and other organisations, including the citizens advice bureaux, would reveal the high social costs of the inferior rights and job security which, sadly, exist in Britain.

Mike Gapes: If there were to be a referendum on the basis that the Government, or at least the Conservative party is proposing, it would be on worse terms in respect of the rights of trade unionists, women and people on maternity leave. It would not be a question of the status quo or leaving. It would be question of a worse position or leaving, as was put forward by the Fresh Start Group and other Conservative Back-Bench groups.

Peter Hain: I agree completely. All that social protection would be dispensed with under the Conservative nirvana.
	New schedule 2 and amendment 68 would provide for consultation on the common agricultural policy, a matter that was briefly raised earlier. I would like not only the National Farmers Union to be consulted under sub-paragraph (b) of new schedule 2 but the Farmers’ Union of Wales and NFU Cymru under sub-paragraph (j), because the CAP is wasteful and works against the interests of the world’s poor. However, a Britain on the margins of Europe would not be in a strong position to reform the CAP—I am sure that that would be revealed by a consultation—and nor would it be able to create more sustainable agriculture and rural communities. Without a full commitment to the EU, we will have less influence, too, on determining European negotiating positions in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. I am sure that farmers’ unions and organisations would endorse the position that I have just advanced in a consultation.
	If we exited from the EU, we would have less influence on CAP reform. The fact that we are on the border of the rest of the EU means that we are affected by the CAP whether we like it or not. We would disadvantage our own farmers by not having the ability to influence what was going on in Brussels and the policies that flow from that. A consultation would reveal that. Overwhelmingly, farmers’ unions and organisations would favour remaining in the EU. The consultation would reveal the arguments in detail and test them in a way that will not be possible in a short referendum campaign.

Martin Horwood: I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the way our influence on many of these issues would be reduced if we left the EU. However, if I may draw him back to his new schedule, is
	there not a problem with such a prescriptive list of organisations? If the NFU is included, why not the Soil Association or the Country Land and Business Association? If Universities UK is included, why not the Russell Group or the Gazelle group of FE colleges? If the Association of Chief Police Officers is included, why not GCHQ—that would be topical? There is a problem with having such a prescriptive list.

Peter Hain: I am at a loss to understand what exactly the Lib Dem role is in all this. If the hon. Gentleman looks at new schedule 2, he will see that sub-paragraph (j) provides for “other organisations”, and that includes all the organisations that he mentioned and many more that I am about to mention.
	On the question of a proper, concerted approach to the environment in the whole of the EU, the consultation could seek the views of Friends of the Earth, which is mentioned in sub-paragraph (h), the Local Government Association, which is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wide Fund for Nature. All those organisations would be able to confirm in a consultation that Britain on its own would be unable to guarantee a sustainable future for our citizens. We are so close to the continent of Europe that clear skies, pure water, clean beaches and a healthy environment can be delivered only through co-operation at European level. A consultation on the environment would reveal the case for staying in the European Union and why the Bill is so irrelevant.
	I turn now to consultation on other issues. In the past 25 years, the greatest promoters of workers’ rights, women’s rights and the rights of all against discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, age and disability have been European directives and decisions of the European Court of Justice that have often been forced on reluctant British Governments. There should be consultations with the TUC under sub-paragraph (c), with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations under sub-paragraph (g) and, under sub-paragraph (j), with Age UK, Disability Rights UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Stonewall and a number of other organisations that I am sure would be queuing up to be consulted to reinforce the point that our membership of the European Union is valuable for their members and for British citizens in general.
	I would also like to see proper consultation with the people of Wales prior to a referendum being called. I suspect that the Welsh Government would happily organise such a consultation on behalf of the UK Government if the amendment were accepted by the promoter of the Bill. I suppose that the Welsh Government could qualify under sub-paragraph (j), as one of the “other organisations”, but I think they deserve rather more respect than that. Such a consultation would provide an opportunity to show that Wales benefits hugely from the UK’s membership of the European Union. Without the £1.9 billion of EU funds, Wales would be missing £3.7 billion of investment since 2007. For those who need further convincing, that top-line figure breaks down into 6,000 new enterprises and 20,000 jobs. It is this support from Europe’s funds that made possible the highly successful Jobs Growth Wales programme,
	which created more than 8,000 jobs for young people. A consultation organised by the Welsh Government on behalf of the UK Government would allow that proposition to be assessed. Opponents of remaining in the EU would also be able to assess it. A debate could take place, and a proper report could be presented to Parliament.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend is making a balanced speech, but will he explain how putting £2 into the European Union for every £1 that comes back to us is a sensible use of taxpayers’ money?

Peter Hain: I was discussing Wales, where there is a surplus of £40 per person in relation to the money contributed to the EU, compared with the money that comes back. I shall not go any further into my answer to my hon. Friend, as that would take me beyond the terms of the debate.
	A consultation of the people of Wales, organised by Welsh Government, would overwhelmingly endorse our continued membership of the European Union. More importantly, it would put objective facts before Parliament for us to assess. That is what the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East would provide for.
	A full consultation would reveal that the values that the British people have long supported are also fundamentally European values. They are the values of community, solidarity, social justice and cohesion, and a fair chance in life for all. Those British values are also European values, and they are best realised through co-operation with our European colleagues. Consultation under sub-paragraph (j) would allow us to consult the Royal United Services Institute. I think it would say that the idea of Britain pulling up the drawbridge and declaring ourselves alone is nonsense. Anti-Europeanism has no answers to the increasing interdependence of our globe. I am sure that RUSI would endorse that position. I do not speak for it, but it would at any rate have the opportunity through this consultation to express its point of view and it will then be for all of us to make an assessment of it.
	It seems to me that we need to emphasise the importance of that to the promoter of the Bill. Why he will not accept these amendments, I have no idea. I have no idea either why the Government will not support them or why the Minister will not support them—unless he is going to surprise me; I hope he does. From the way he is smiling enigmatically at me, it does not look as if he is going to surprise me. I believe that these amendments, however, would enhance the strength of the case for this Bill.
	Another opportunity for this consultation would be the laying out of the facts about the consequences for Britain of those who argue that European withdrawal would be replaced by joining the North Atlantic free trade area. If we consulted the CBI, or for that matter the Institute of Directors or independent groups such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, I am sure it would reveal that British trade with the EU was three times that with North America. We have over twice the amount of trade with Holland than with the major south-eastern economies. The rest of the EU buys three times as many UK exports by value as the UK’s next
	most important export partner, the US—equivalent to 15% of UK gross domestic product. Again, we would be able to assess those facts. No doubt UKIP and others would make their arguments, but without a proper assessment and without the proper consultation for which we are asking, none of those arguments will have a chance to be assessed in the run-up to the short, concentrated, volatile and highly-charged referendum campaign.

Ian Murray: My right hon. Friend is making a strong case showing why these issues need to be examined in great depth. If he reflects on the referendum that is currently happening for Scotland, he will find that the debate has not risen to the levels he mentions, because we have not had the in-depth analysis of issues surrounding the Scottish referendum. The debate has left so many unanswered questions that the people of Scotland are demanding more information.

Peter Hain: As a Scottish MP of high repute in this House, my hon. Friend presents his evidence with some credibility. He is right that the Scottish referendum process reinforces exactly the case we are putting for these amendments.
	Those who want us to withdraw from the EU suggest that we can have our cake and eat it by staying within the European single market to retain the great bulk of our trade, which is with EU countries. Once again, this could be assessed through a proper consultation, as specified in amendment 68 and new schedule 2. Those who want to withdraw first argue that we would avoid the costs of membership, which they denounce as too high; secondly, they insist that EU regulations make our economy uncompetitive; and thirdly, they allege a loss of sovereignty that comes with European political union.
	Our amendments would enable us to assess what those arguments amount to and how seriously we should take them. They would provide an opportunity properly to consult all the different groups involved and all the different sources of expertise, which would reveal that the facts are rather different. It would reveal first that the price of Britain’s EU membership is rather more modest than the anti-Europeans would have us believe. The Government contributed £7 billion to the EU in 2012, which is around 1%—

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this a debate about the merits of remaining part of the European Union, or not?

Eleanor Laing: I have already explained this morning that I am listening carefully to all Members to ensure that they adhere strictly to the terms of the amendments they are proposing. The right hon. Member is in order in the remarks he is making.

Peter Hain: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I believe that a consultation would also reveal that the Government contributed £7 billion to the EU in 2012, about 1% of total public expenditure and equivalent to 0.4% of GDP—I am sure that the CBI would have something to say about this, because its report seems to suggest the same thing. Although leaving the EU and rejoining the single market would cost Britain less, it would not be much less. We would need to negotiate a
	relationship like that enjoyed by Norway, the largest of the nations in the European economic area, which we would presumably join.

Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Peter Hain: I want to make some progress so that others have a chance to speak.
	A consultation with the Institute of Directors, the CBI or the independent economic think-tanks would also endorse the notion that joining the EEA would cost Britain about £6 billion. Yes, that is about £1 billion —or 17% less than our membership of the EU—but it is still a large amount in comparison and assumes that our EU partners would, after our departure, be in an open frame of mind to accept us back into some kind of trading relationship. I am sure that the CBI and all the other business organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce, would want to have a say on that.
	As members of the European economic area, we would still be bound by the regulations that the anti-EU camp denounce. In return for access to the single market, Norway and all the other relevant countries, such as Switzerland and Iceland, must adopt nearly all European Union legislation relevant to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, together with laws in areas such as employment, consumer protection, environmental policy and competition.
	There would, of course, be the chance properly to assess such a move. A report would be placed before Parliament and we would spend days debating on the Floor of the House whether to accept the report and the assessment. We would also be able to assess one point made by the CBI, which would also have a greater chance to have its say than it would during the compressed period of a short referendum campaign. That point is that we would also be bound by future European law in those areas, even though we were outside the European Union.

William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) about the date of 23 October 2014, which has not yet been debated? Does he agree that a referendum on that date would get totally entangled with the Scottish referendum, which will take place only a month before? Furthermore, it is dangerous to choose a specific date, as was the case in 2007 when we had to delay the local elections because of the foot and mouth outbreak. There are a whole stack of reasons for not having a specific date for a referendum.

Peter Hain: As in 1992 and 1993, when the hon. Gentleman and I were on the same side of the argument on the Maastricht treaty, I completely agree with him. His logic on this point is absolutely faultless, even if it often is not on many other European matters.
	I believe—perhaps I am wrong—that all the business organisations, if consulted, would take the view of the CBI report and dismiss a customs union as an alternative to European Union membership—the “Turkey option”—as the very worst of all the halfway alternatives, leaving the UK with very limited EU market access and zero influence over trade deals.

Julian Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is very gracious to give way when we are so pressed for time. May I invite him to return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)? If the setting of an earlier date is such a problem, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why amendment 22, tabled by his own colleague, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), suggests the date of 2014? Although I was listening very carefully to the scintillating speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), I am not sure that I heard him address that specific point. I would be very interested to know whether the Opposition intend to vote for that amendment.

Peter Hain: Although I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman, I invite him to wait and see. He might not even find out today, for all I know; that is not in my hands. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has the chance to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye, no doubt the hon. Gentleman’s question will be answered.
	Consultation under new schedule 2 would reveal that retaining membership of a customs union only would be an inappropriate economic stance for the UK in the modern global economy. The CBI report suggests that, with non-tariff barriers often replacing tariffs as the major obstacle to trade, a customs union would not be sufficient to support Britain’s trading ambitions in the modern global economy, with its complex supply chains, and could limit UK access to EU markets in areas such as services, on which our economy is so based.
	Then we come to direct trade. Again, consultation with the CBI, the Institute of Directors and British Chambers of Commerce under new schedule 2 and amendment 68 would reveal that Britain’s trade with countries outside the EU is all conducted under the auspices of trading agreements negotiated centrally by Brussels, as the EU has exclusive competence to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. No EU member state can have its own separate bilateral trade agreements.
	If we left the EU, given its trading arrangements with other EU countries and outside the EU, our trading arrangements would likely be determined by individual bilateral negotiations, and we would do so by default on terms governed by World Trade Organisation agreements. As a member of the WTO in our own right, there is no legal impediment to our negotiating such agreements, but we would be in a much weaker position, and a consultation would reveal that as well.
	As I think that the CBI would argue, given that its report makes much the same point, if it were consulted and had a proper chance to consult all its members—something that it could not possibly do during a three-week or so referendum campaign, nor would Parliament be able to assess the outcome of that consultation—it would reveal that the UK would become eligible for tariffs outside the EU that the EU imposes on goods that enter from outside the Union. It might also face higher tariffs levied by other countries with which the EU has preferential trade agreements.
	A consultation would also reveal that, as the CBI has argued in its report, going it alone through the WTO would reduce market access through increased tariffs on UK goods and services. Refraining from entering
	into any formal relationship with the EU and simply relying on the WTO rules is not a model that would assist Britain in achieving the global trading role to which we aspire and which we have enjoyed historically.

John Baron: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that he does not keep referring to the CBI. After all, it was the organisation that suggested that there would be dire consequences if we did not join the euro.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s wider point about trade, much smaller countries at the heart of Europe, such as Switzerland, do not just survive but thrive outside the EU on the basis of trade. I suggest that he reflect on that, because he is talking down our ability to negotiate trade agreements with the wider world, and doing so is not justified by the evidence or facts.

Peter Hain: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, he will not be surprised to hear. Norway and especially Switzerland are small countries. Britain is a big country, with an historic global role in trade, diplomacy and defence. The idea that we will be a kind of Norway with nukes seems to be no prescription for Britain’s future, holding its head high in the world.

Phil Wilson: If we are not going to listen just to the CBI, perhaps we should listen to Nissan in my region as well. Nissan has said today that it would be a real mistake to leave Europe and to exit that door. When we consider that it employs 6,500 in the north-east and has 40,000 people in the supply chain, is it not the kind of people we should be listening to as well?

Peter Hain: Indeed. A consultation should be held, and one of the first organisations that should be consulted under paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 is Nissan. With its 6,500 workers in Sunderland, it is a major European car manufacturer. What did its chief executive, Carlos Ghosn, say today? He said:
	“If anything has to change,”
	Nissan would
	“need to reconsider our strategy and our investments for the future”—
	that is to say, if Britain were to leave the European Union.

Martin Horwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: I will make progress. I have let the hon. Gentleman in a number of times.
	The point that I was about to make about consultation is that inward investors, particularly Japanese companies such as Nissan, come into the European Union bringing with them tens of thousands of jobs—direct jobs and indirect jobs—and a great deal of wealth. They come here because they will be part of the single market of the European Union. Again, under new schedule 2 we would be able to consult them. We would be able to consult Ford, which has plants at Bridgend and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Such companies are in the United Kingdom rather than elsewhere in the European Union because we are members of the EU and part of the single market. We would want to consult them, as well as Sony, Toyota—[Interruption.] We would want
	to consult Airbus, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) reminds me. That is a really important company, right on the Welsh-English border in the north-east of Wales. It would need to be consulted as well.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman attempts to make further progress, I should suggest to him that although he has been perfectly in order in speaking about consultation, he is in danger of being a little repetitive. It might be as well for him to consider drawing his remarks to a conclusion in the near future.

Peter Hain: I was planning to do precisely that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret having taken so many interventions, otherwise I would have concluded already.
	On the argument about sovereignty, under sub-paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 we would consult organisations such as the Royal United Services Institute in respect of our membership of NATO. We have given up sovereignty to be members of NATO, but we have gained extra power and influence. We have given up sovereignty—yes, of course we have—to be members of the European Union, but we have gained extra economic, political and diplomatic influence. If we consulted Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace about the environmental benefits that we have gained by having a say in the policies of the countries right on our border on the continent of Europe, it would be clear that we are a key force in determining those decisions.
	All the evidence points to the fact that systematic consultation with all the different parts of our society, all the groups in our society specified in new schedule 2, would give us a great opportunity to go into the debate and decide, if we are to have a referendum at all, when it should be. That would be the great advantage which the Bill, unamended, denies us. More importantly, it denies an obligation on Government to consult and, having consulted over a lengthy period, an obligation to come back to Parliament, and for Parliament to have a considered debate rather than to be stampeded into a referendum next year. For all the reasons given by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others, that would be the wrong choice, in my view.
	Without my amendment being accepted, setting an arbitrary date some time in 2017 could conceivably mean that the referendum would be held right in the middle of the United Kingdom presidency. Imagine the nonsense of doing that and leaving us in an entirely invidious position—indeed, a laughing stock if a referendum took place during that six months.
	I hope the promoter of the Bill will reconsider accepting the amendments, and I hope that when the Europe Minister contributes to the debate, he will back them. If either of them does not do so, I have to ask what they are frightened of. Are they frightened of the facts and the arguments being revealed, and the British people deciding either that they do not want a referendum at all on the proposed timetable or, if they do want a referendum at some stage in the future, that staying in the European Union is the right thing to do?

David Lidington: The amendments in this group fall into three categories: the significant amendment about consultation spoken to by the right hon. Member for
	Neath (Mr Hain), the amendments that seek to require the Government to avoid clashes between the referendum and religious holidays or other elections, and the important amendments of various kinds to do with the date in question.
	First, I will deal with consultation. I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—his paean to the merits of the European Union and Britain’s membership of it. I find myself in agreement with some elements, such as the successes of the single market, enlargement and Franco-German reconciliation, although he may have underplayed some of the downsides of how the EU currently operates. However, the point is that the Bill does not seek to prescribe whether the United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union but to give the British people the final decision on that question, on which there are perfectly honourable, long-standing differences of view within all the main political parties in this House.
	The right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that a massive consultation exercise, which the Government are leading, is already under way on the current balance of competences in the European Union, and it goes far wider than the organisations specified in the Opposition’s proposals. Moreover, the Opposition underplay the fact that in a real referendum campaign there will be the widest of debates involving all the organisations listed in new schedule 2 and many more.

Edward Leigh: When will the serious renegotiation start?

David Lidington: The serious work on the reform of the European Union is already under way. I know that my hon. Friend will be delighted by the successful reform of the common fisheries policy, the ban on discarding, the push towards local regional management of fisheries, the cut in the EU budget, and the moves on deregulation that this Government have already achieved, even in coalition.

Gareth Thomas: The Minister is just talking about the past. What powers and competences does he think the Prime Minister wants to bring back? The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked a perfectly reasonable question. Will the Minister answer it? What has he got to hide?

David Lidington: What I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman and his party is whether they want to give the British people a say in our future in Europe or they are determined to deny them that say.
	Given the reality of the debate that will take place, and given that the Electoral Commission would appoint umbrella organisations for yes and no campaigns, this well-intentioned new schedule is unnecessary because there is no need to specify organisations in that way.
	The same is true of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) about religious holidays and potential clashes with other elections. These matters already have to be considered.

Mike Gapes: The Minister should be aware that I have not yet had a chance to speak to those amendments, so he is referring to them in the absence of my having done so. I hope that I may get that chance on 22 November.

David Lidington: The amendments touch on matters that every Government already have to consider in looking at election dates. Successive Governments have taken a pragmatic approach to those matters, and it would be disproportionate to include them in the Bill.

Gareth Thomas: Surely the Minister thinks that the British people are entitled to know what plan B would be if a referendum that the Prime Minister calls leads to a British exit. Why not, then, consult the CBI about the Switzerland option or the Norway option? Why will he not concede that possibility and the need for that consultation?

David Lidington: It is already open to the CBI and to any other such organisations to express their views fully and vigorously, and that is what they do at all times, in conversations with Ministers, in publications, and in debates and forums. I know that the hon. Gentleman has only just been appointed to this role, but he ought to wake up and see the debate that is actually going on rather than trying to invoke some kind of Aunt Sally.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We can wake up to the fact that still we have not heard from the promoter of a private Member’s Bill on a private Member’s day. What is going on in this Chamber?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Chris Williamson: rose—

David Lidington: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Williamson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Earlier in the debate, he said that the stakeholders referred to in new schedule 2 would be able to make their views known during the course of a referendum campaign. Does he not believe that they have an interest in the referendum date? That is what the consultation is about. Will the Minister deal with that point?
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
	Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 22 November.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	MARGARET THATCHER DAY BILL

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (5 July), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 22 November.

PLANNING REGULATIONS (REMOVAL OF PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014.

EXTENSION OF FRANCHISE (HOUSE OF LORDS) BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November.

EU MEMBERSHIP (AUDIT OF COSTS AND BENEFITS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November.

ASYLUM (TIME LIMIT) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November.

FOREIGN NATIONALS (ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November.

HOUSE OF LORDS (MAXIMUM MEMBERSHIP) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November.

APPRENTICESHIPS AND SKILLS (PUBLIC PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS) BILL

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (1 November), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 22 November.

PETITIONS

A14 Road Improvement and Financing

Therese Coffey: It is my great privilege to present a petition on behalf of the people of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area. It has been signed by 2,292 people.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area,
	Declares that the planned road improvements on the A14, a key route connecting the Midlands with the UK’s leading container port of Felixstowe and designated as a Trans-European Transport Network, will be welcomed by most users of the A14, particularly by residents in Cambridgeshire, and is expected to reduce congestion on this key route for commuters and businesses alike; further declares that this is one of several major road improvements proposed by Her Majesty’s Government though notes that this is the only road improvement scheme proposed to be partially financed by a toll; further declares the concerns of the petitioners that this will have a detrimental effect on the economy of Suffolk.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to remove the planned requirement to toll vehicles on the A14.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001257]

Public Interest Disclosure Act

Charlotte Leslie: I rise to present a petition on behalf of care whistleblower and former care assistant Eileen Chubb, who has fought a long and valiant campaign for justice for whistleblowers and for compassion in our care homes. She believes that current protections for whistleblowers have failed and that there is an urgent need to replace the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 with legislation that properly protects those who speak out.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Eileen Chubb of the Bupa 7 whistleblowers, and Director and Founder of the charity Compassion in Care,
	Declares that following the Petition of 15 July 2004, in which the Petitioner urged the former government to address the failures of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA), the response was one of ‘No comment’; further that the House should note the report “Breaking the Silence: Part 1”, which is available via www.compassionincare.com and contains evidence of 1500 whistle-blowers who have been failed by PIDA and that the information contained in this report is a damning indictment of any civilised country; and that the Petitioner believes that the report shows that recent changes to PIDA will be entirely ineffective as will the recommendations of the Francis Inquiry.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action by considering the evidence submitted in the report and replace PIDA before any more needless suffering and loss of life occurs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001283]

OLYMPIC LEGACY (EAST LONDON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Diane Abbott: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I am glad to have the opportunity to come to this House and talk about the Olympic legacy in London. I will talk in particular about the Olympic legacy that was promised and what has actually happened, with particular reference to east London.
	From the time when it was announced that London had got the 2012 Olympics, I made a point of talking to and chasing up Ministers and stakeholders on the question of jobs and employment in the east end. I met the then Mayor on a number of occasions to discuss that subject. I met the London Development Agency. I met the then Olympics Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell).
	I concede to no one in my pleasure and excitement at the summer of 2012. For those of us who are born and bred Londoners, the summer of 2012 was one of the most magical summers in London. As a Member of Parliament for one of the east end boroughs, I was privileged to tour the Olympic park, which was a wonderful piece of landscaping. It was a complete regeneration of what had been a very sad part of Stratford. I was even fortunate enough to have a ticket for the 100 metres final. I will refrain from confessing to the House who I shouted for, but I certainly saw the sporting excellence that was on display.
	For me, one of the most magical aspects of the Olympics in 2012 was the Olympic volunteers. They were a group of people, young and old, who really looked like London and who brought their enthusiasm and pleasure to the process. Many people who were fortunate enough to visit the Olympic park remember those volunteers above all else.
	Even though 2012 was a golden summer, I have not forgotten the promises that were made in the run-up to the Olympics. I remind the House that the five Olympic host boroughs—Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest and Hackney—are among the poorest areas in the country. All five host boroughs are in the 15% most deprived areas in the country and Hackney is in the bottom 5%. Only 55% of people of working age in Hackney are in employment, despite the fact that the population is comparatively young. Few places in the country are in greater need of regeneration and a long-term economic boost. I truly believed that the 2012 Olympics were the perfect departure point for that boost and that regeneration. Although I know that the Olympic legacy process is still in train, it seems to me appropriate, fully 12 months after the Olympics ended, to return to the important issues of jobs, employment and regeneration.
	From the time when work began on the Olympic park, I voiced my concerns about the low number of local people who were working on the site. Figures released by the Olympic Delivery Authority in October 2010 revealed that of the 6,423 workers on the Olympic park, just 130 came from Hackney—the lowest figure among the five boroughs—and that only seven of the
	apprentices on the site lived in Hackney. There have been great outcomes of the Olympics, but unless we are watchful, we will fall far short of expectations on some of the promises for the Olympic legacy.
	The promise to London, particularly east London, was that the Olympics would be transforming. We were told that a well planned, well managed environment would be created, which would attract business investment and promote recreational and cultural use in years to come; that communities would be transformed, with 9,000 new homes being built, a large proportion of which would be affordable; and that new sport, leisure, education and health facilities would be provided to meet the needs of residents, businesses and élite sport. Above all, we were told that the Olympics would transform prospects, help 20,000 workless Londoners from the five host boroughs into permanent employment by 2012 and create 12,000 job opportunities in the area of the park post-games.
	In the case of transport, an improved and expanded London underground is certainly one of the successes of the games. The London Overground has also benefited, and Stratford must be one of the best-connected sporting venues in the world. I will return to the matter of transport in the months to come, but I wish to say now that prices on London transport remain too high, and that Londoners cannot understand why an underground system that was able to run almost flawlessly during the Olympic games does not seem to be able to do so on a day-to-day basis.
	Although we all thrilled at the élite sportspeople— Mo Farah and the rest—the sports legacy of the Olympics is not as good as we would like. Over the past year, there has been a decline in the number of children across all age groups involved in sport. A survey of 2,000 children carried out earlier this year found that a quarter of girls between five and 10 said that they had not taken part in any sport over the past month, up from 17% five years ago. One in seven boys said that they had not. Even walking appears to have declined in popularity. That can come as no surprise given the Government’s school sport reforms, including the abolition of the school sport partnerships scheme. We know that work is being done—in particular, I draw the House’s attention to the Hard Rock Café east London rugby league project—but it is concerning that in a difficult and constrained time of austerity, ordinary people’s level of sporting participation seems to be going down.

Kate Hoey: It is brilliant that my hon. Friend has secured the debate. Does she accept that a substantial amount of money has been put into small facilities, particularly in her borough of Hackney? The mobile swimming pool has brought a lot of new people into swimming. Does she also agree that it is important to have a genuine partnership between all the London local authorities, city hall and the Mayor? There is ring-fenced money now, in small amounts but enough to be a catalyst. It is important that people work together; otherwise, in 10 years’ time we will look back and say that there has not been a legacy.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Small amounts of money have been provided, and there are some excellent specific projects, such as the rugby league
	one to which I referred. The problem is that the overall number of young people participating in sport is drifting downwards. She is right that there has to be a big push to make the money that is available a catalyst for levels of sporting activity to remain constant and then rise. Of course, sporting activity is not just for fun. As someone who has taken an interest in public health in recent times, I know that activity is important for our young people’s health and well-being.
	Housing is the area in which we have been disappointed, given the expectations that we had. Assurances were given that thousands of homes would be allocated for social housing. Of the 11,000 homes scheduled to be built over the next 15 to 20 years, the promise was that 35% would be affordable and social housing. However, with the Government’s changed policy on social housing, their refusal to cap rents and their austerity-based economics, it seems that many local people will not be able to afford that so-called affordable housing. Of the 2,818 homes in the Olympic legacy programme, Newham will receive 350 and Tower Hamlets just 27.Just 100 homes will be divided between Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Hackney—an average of 13 homes per borough. What kind of housing legacy is that?
	As to the notion of affordable, in the context of the Government’s social housing policy, which means that subsidised properties can be rented at up to 80% of market rates, those homes will be affordable only for people earning £30,000 or more, which is above the average wage in the east end of London. Shelter calculates that the median monthly rent for a two-bedroom house in Newham is £953. That means that a two-bedroom property in the new development could be classified as affordable if advertised to let at £762—beyond the reach of many of the people I represent.
	As we know, the Olympic village was sold to the Qatari ruling family’s property company, and the UK property developer Delancey Estates. That deal left the UK taxpayer £275 million out of pocket, and also means that there will be economic and commercial pressure to increase the buy-to-let proportion of those properties. I believe the sum effect will be to drive those properties out of the reach of ordinary Londoners.
	I touched on employment at the start of my remarks, as I take a particular interest in that. At the beginning there was a commitment to ensure that 20,000 Olympics jobs went to residents of the games’ host boroughs, but in the end, only 9,700 did—less than half. That was a poor start, and things have not necessarily got any better. Given that the 5 Borough Employment and Skills project and the 2012 Employment Legacy programme started after the Olympics, once the big bulge of job opportunities had gone, it is no surprise that both projects have apparently underspent. Given that unemployment remains a serious issue in the east end, we should question how those projects can realistically support sustained employment when they struggled to find local people in the first place.
	The Olympics were certainly important for industries such as construction, but when I asked about the number of local people employed on the site in the first place, we found that in 2010, only 20% of workers on the Olympic site were from one of the five host boroughs. It is not evident that local construction companies benefited from the various contracts.
	A number of local ventures surrounding the Olympics—notably Westfield shopping centre in Stratford—were meant to directly benefit locals. At that shopping centre, however, of 10,500 permanent jobs created by Westfield, just 2,000 are filled by local people. Those jobs do not require some fantastically high level of qualification and skill; they are jobs in the retail and service industries, yet only 2,000—less than 20%—are filled by local people. Of course the summer of 2012 was magical, and we have seen improvements in transport infrastructure. However, when we consider the billions of pounds invested in the Olympics, and the numbers of people uprooted, we have yet to see what was promised to Londoners.
	We know that regeneration will take place over the next 15 to 20 years. The issues are evident now, and it is not too late to make the necessary changes to meet as many of the original commitments of the Olympic legacy as possible. For instance, although the current organisations managing the Olympic legacy have set employment targets, they refuse to set minimum employment targets. If we are to meet our promise to the people of London, and particularly the Olympic boroughs, we must think about setting minimum targets.
	Wonderful though some of 2012 was, in my view it was disappointing that so few local people got jobs—as opposed to volunteer opportunities—at the Olympic park. It was disappointing that so few local businesses got business opportunities, and I call on the Minister and the House to ensure that the promises of the Olympic games—increased levels of sporting activity among ordinary people, particularly children, and employment, business, cultural and sporting regeneration—are kept. The people involved in managing the Olympic legacy should not believe that London MPs, particularly MPs for the Olympic boroughs, are not watching what they are doing. The process will take 10 to 15 years. We will watch them every step of the way.

Meg Hillier: It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is also a pleasure to stand here united with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), my fellow Hackney MP, to endorse what she said.
	I wanted to add a couple of perspectives from my constituency to the point that my hon. Friend made very effectively about jobs. As she said, there are good news stories from the Olympics. Regardless of anything else, 800 new homes are a good thing, but she is right that the Government’s policy is putting that at risk. The homes need to be affordable for local people, and we also need to watch that they are not sold to overseas landlords. We need to ensure that they are owned within the community, or certainly in the UK, even if they are let.
	My constituency has a really great legacy in the Copper Box, a multi-sport facility that will host the London basketball team. Events are already happening, so that is a direct legacy. It is run by Better, the organisation that runs the borough sports facilities, so it is accessible to local people. iCITY has brought in BT Sport as the first anchor tenant in the media centre, and it is giving Sky Sports a run for its money. I met BT Sport only this week to push it on the jobs front, and I am watching that closely.
	There are some excellent small businesses. Hackney Pearl, a fantastic restaurant and café in my constituency, was an early believer in the Olympics. It has struggled because infrastructure changes have not happened as quickly as they should after the Olympics to give it the boost it needs, but it is an example of the interest of local businesses in the potential legacy that my hon. Friend highlighted.
	In the seconds I have remaining, I want to make a point about jobs. The borough is working closely with local companies to ring-fence jobs locally for Hackney residents, including in the construction of any new facilities. The Ways into Work programme is an important step that provides one-to-one support for local people. The support is holistic, involving everything from interview skills upwards.
	However, the key thing that my hon. Friend highlighted, which I reiterate to the Minister, is that we and others are watching what is happening. We need an audit of employers who have promised to recruit and employ local people, because without that, they will not do so. There were scams in Olympic employment. It took me a while to uncover them, and by that time it was too late to do anything about them. For example, people pretended to be local.

Diane Abbott: One scam was that people who had moved very recently to Hackney were counted as Hackney residents.

Meg Hillier: If I had time, I could detail more scams, but there certainly were scams. I know that this is not the Minister’s remit, but it is vital that he takes the point back to his colleagues. There needs to be an audit of where people came from. I will happily give him more details, but I am anxious, as my hon. Friend is, to hear the Government’s official response.
	My hon. Friend and I agree that there have been some great benefits from the Olympics, but jobs and skills are the real prize. It is the legacy that we are both watching like hawks.

Edward Vaizey: This is the first time I have served under your speakership, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are all novices, but you are doing a fantastic job.
	I am delighted to respond to the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for her contribution, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who made an intervention.
	I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to debate the Olympic legacy. I echo the words of the hon. Ladies that there is a lot of good news, but it is incredibly important that we keep a close eye on progress. I recognise where the project is going well, but we should always ask, “Can we do better?” I want to suggest constructive ways in which we might do so, and I take the speeches made in that spirit.
	If I may, I shall talk a bit about the wider legacy in east London, and in particular about what has happened to some of the venues. I echo what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said: I, too,
	thoroughly enjoyed the Olympics and Paralympics. I am not sure that we will ever grow tired of saying that they were possibly the best Olympics and Paralympics the world has ever seen, and the nation as a whole was immensely proud.
	It is also worth emphasising that this was a cross-party triumph. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) persuaded the then Government to bid for the Olympics. They were won by the previous Government and executed by this Government, and two different Mayors were also involved. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington also spoke about transport, the sporting legacy, housing, and employment and jobs, all of which are very relevant.
	Since last autumn, the Government and the Mayor of London have been working together to ensure that we deliver a single and joined-up legacy from the games. Our priority is to ensure that, as well as investing in infrastructure, we secure an economic and social legacy for people living in east London. We want to provide access to education, training and jobs, as well as greater opportunities to take part in sport, physical activity and, of course, volunteering, which was a huge aspect of the games that people perhaps had not expected. We are determined to ensure that the levels of community engagement and civic pride experienced during the summer of 2012 can be sustained.
	As I am sure hon. Members know, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is the lead Minister responsible for the overall co-ordination and delivery of the legacy. She is deputy chair of the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Cabinet Committee, which is chaired by the Prime Minister. Its meetings are also attended by Lord Coe, in his role as the Prime Minister’s legacy ambassador, and the Mayor of London, who has lead responsibility for east London regeneration.
	In April 2012, responsibility for legacy in east London was devolved from the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Mayor. The London Legacy Development Corporation was established as the first ever mayoral development corporation and, in September 2012, the Mayor became chairman of the legacy corporation. There are therefore well-established governance structures in place to provide a robust framework for effective legacy implementation in east London.
	As a demonstration of progress towards a lasting legacy, I want to give the House an update. We have secured the future of all eight venues on the Olympic park—the stadium, the Copper Box, the aquatics centre, the press and broadcast centre, the ArcelorMittal Orbit, the east village, the Lee Valley hockey and tennis centre and the Lee Valley velo park. That is a significant achievement. I shall not single out any previous Olympics, but I cannot think of many other Olympic host cities that have achieved such a turnaround in such a short space of time.
	To give credit where it is due, one of the key aspects of the Olympics was that legacy was at the forefront of people’s thinking from the moment the games were won. Operators are now in place to oversee the transition and management of all the park venues in legacy, and this is the first time that has been achieved by a host city within one year of the games.
	The Queen Elizabeth Olympic park started to re-open in summer 2013 with major events at the Copper Box. The Copper Box is now open to the general public, including the east London community, with individual gym sessions available from £3. The re-opening of the park venues will continue in spring 2014 with the velo park and hockey and tennis centres, operated by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, and with the aquatics centre and the ArcelorMittal Orbit.
	We have also secured major events that should provide employment opportunities, such as the rugby world cup in 2015, the European hockey and swimming championships in 2016 and the world athletics championships in 2017, and iCITY has been confirmed as occupiers of the press and broadcast centre, with tenants including BT Sport, Loughborough university and Infinity.
	As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington mentioned, housing and infrastructure is coming on stream fast. We are going to build up to 11,000 homes in and around the five neighbourhoods and the park, including 3,000 new homes in the east village, which we hope will form the bedrock of a fantastic new and vibrant community in east London. It will be a huge part of the legacy of London 2012. In fact, the first residents are expected to move into their new homes in the east village later this month. Furthermore, the ODA has converted almost 3,000 of the athletes’ homes to create a new neighbourhood for London, including almost 1,500 affordable apartments and almost 1,500 apartments at market rents, as well as a new school, a health centre, parklands and roads. I therefore think we are making significant progress on housing.
	The hon. Lady rightly talked about jobs. Plans for the park will create capacity for 10,000 new jobs, of which 4,500 will be at iCITY in the press and broadcast centre. iCITY has told us that it wants to recruit new staff from the local community. I understand that it is working closely with Hackney community college to support local people into new jobs as they become available. Furthermore, the park transformation programme has created 2,500 construction jobs in east London. I heard what she said about Westfield and whether people from her local community were getting the jobs, but nevertheless that development has created 10,000 new jobs, with the capacity for another 25,000 in the international quarter on the park.
	On Hackney community college, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch mentioned the Ways into Work programme, which is working at the heart of Hackney. The London Legacy Development Corporation is also working closely with borough partners to ensure that training and job brokerage programmes help local people into work. The corporation has exceeded its target of recruiting 25% of the work force from the local area, and the proportion for construction jobs is now more than one third.
	As a result of the games, investor interest in east London is huge, and the Government are working with the Mayor and London Legacy Development Corporation to secure private investment for the park. We are determined to ensure that the people of east London benefit from new events, visitor attractions and the new international profile of the area. In addition, the Government continue to invest nationally in a range of priority areas, committing more than £1 billion of funding over four years to youth
	and community sport, and ring-fencing £150 million of funding each year for school sports over the next two years. Join In has been established as the charity to support games makers and others inspired by the games to continue volunteering in their local communities. In addition, more than £9 billion of international trade and investment was won on the back of the games, and tourist numbers to the UK have increased, with visitors now spending more than £19 billion a year.
	We can safely say that we are making excellent progress with the legacy overall. As I said, we have managed to transfer all the venues and find new uses for them. Jobs have been created on a significant scale and new housing is now coming on stream. The Government continue to work closely with the Mayor and the London Legacy Development Corporation to deliver a sustainable legacy that will benefit the communities of east London, and we are committed to securing the future of the park as a national asset.
	I will take away the points made by hon. Members. In particular, I will ask the Sports Minister to consider the
	auditing of employers, although London is obviously a place where people move around quite frequently, so sometimes it will be difficult to establish these things, and clearly employers will be employing people who are new to the borough. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch used the very strong word “scam”, and I will certain ask the Minister to respond to that. If the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington wants to set forth a proposal for minimum targets, I am sure that we could look at that, too.
	Finally, on behalf of the Government, I can say that we welcome the scrutiny of hon. Members. They are the ones who so effectively represent their constituents in their constituencies and boroughs, and they are the ones on the ground who can keep the Government informed if they think the legacy programme is not working as effectively as it should.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.